Sounds like Frankenstein which concerns me. ;D
http://www.jimbridenstine.com/blog/05/bridenstine-campaign-announces-internal-polling-results/
as of May 23:
John Sullivan–221 (34.16%)
Jim Bridenstine–213 (32.92%)
Undecided 213–(32.92%)
Pretty close. I'm rooting for the real conservative. Time for change.
Conan, too bad you have to sit this one out. :D
Sounds like a TLC reality show or SyFy channel original movie.
Shows how ignorant 30% + can be. Know nothing about the guy, but like him anyway....well, that's typical for Oklahoma.
Sullivan is plenty bad, but how could 1/3 possibly know enough yet to make that kind of decision. Well, it sounds like another case of "anybody but XXXXX".
You know what would be awesome? A real Republican to vote for. Yes, Virginia, I do actually agree with a lot of the old Republican platform, before they all turned into zombies wandering around shouting "Ayyyyyyyyyyyynnnnnnnn...... Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyynnnnnnnnnnn!"
Unfortunately, Bridenstine seems to fall directly into the tax relief is bad unless the benefits accrue mainly to the donor class trap. I guess that's what happens when you're funded by a group that is largely funded by the Koch brothers.
Apparently, he also hired someone who has no grasp of basic logic:
Quote
He has vowed to oppose any legislation that adds to the national debt. In fact, he has said that he would urge his fellow congressmen to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to raise taxes.
Those two things are diametrically opposed, not complementary.
There is one thing on his website I agree wholeheartedly with. He stated he wouldn't vote on bills before reading them. Good call. Hopefully, if elected, he is willing to hire enough staffers to turn "clause 3 of section 5 of 18 USC 2245 is amended by inserting 'blah blah blah' after the word 'baz'" into something readable so that he can actually make good on that promise.
Edited to add: The Super PAC supporting him seems not to be very Super. It looks more like some sort of weird tax dodge than a legitimate PAC.
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2012, 04:37:47 PM
He has vowed to oppose any legislation that adds to the national debt. In fact, he has said that he would urge his fellow congressmen to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to raise taxes.
Those two things are diametrically opposed, not complementary.
You are forgetting the option of cutting the crap out of everything. I don't think that would be too wise (surprised?) but not adding to the national debt and wanting a supermajority to raise taxes are not necessarily diametrically opposed if you step outside your box.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 06:25:38 PM
I don't think that would be too wise (surprised?) but not adding to the national debt and wanting a supermajority to raise taxes are not necessarily diametrically opposed if you step outside your box.
The box I'm in is the box of being informed by the experience of places like California, where a supermajority is in fact already required to raise taxes and they find themselves with nowhere near enough money to pay for all the roads, prisons, and schools, much less anything else the taxpayers of California demand be funded out of thin air. For all the complaints about high taxes in California they don't manage to collect much money (relative to the size of their economy).
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2012, 06:39:26 PM
The box I'm in is the box of being informed by the experience of places like California, where a supermajority is in fact already required to raise taxes and they find themselves with nowhere near enough money to pay for all the roads, prisons, and schools, much less anything else the taxpayers of California demand be funded out of thin air. For all the complaints about high taxes in California they don't manage to collect much money (relative to the size of their economy).
As I indicated, another box would be to cut the spending. No one would like that whether they admit it or not but it is a popular item and one that will make me think twice before voting for Bridenstein.
If you Democrats can put up someone I could vote for, I may jump ship in the general election.
Heiron: Note that I said someone I could vote for, not someone you could vote for.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 06:48:25 PM
As I indicated, another box would be to cut the spending.
They have. The point is that it's nearly impossible to get 2/3rds of their elected representatives to vote to increase taxes no matter how the budget deficit is. They also have the complication of the public voting for initiatives that cost money, which only requires 51%, unlike the tax increase. At least we wouldn't have that on the national level. But in California's case, cutting spending isn't really possible because so much of it can't be changed without another ballot initiative.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 27, 2012, 06:48:25 PM
As I indicated, another box would be to cut the spending. No one would like that whether they admit it or not but it is a popular item and one that will make me think twice before voting for Bridenstein.
If you Democrats can put up someone I could vote for, I may jump ship in the general election.
Heiron: Note that I said someone I could vote for, not someone you could vote for.
I could vote for Coburn. And have. Could you vote for Boren?
Since you are such a huge fan of cutting spending... and since we have already seen the deficit cut in half in the last 3 years...and the increases in spending are at ALL TIME lows....how about a little list of maybe the top 3 or 4 specific areas where you would cut right now that would make a real difference in the remaining deficit? And in a more general line, what would you do once that deficit is gone to start reducing the debt? Specifically.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 27, 2012, 11:39:10 PM
Since you are such a huge fan of cutting spending... and since we have already seen the deficit cut in half in the last 3 years...and the increases in spending are at ALL TIME lows....
Your statement depends on who's interpretation of the numbers you believe.
I believe there will be a place where spending will be as low as most Americans will be willing to go. It may not be below present spending levels. I don't know where all the bridges to nowhere are hiding but there are more there. I am sure of that. When we finally get to raising taxes, I believe
everyone chips in some. Even the bottom.
My brother and I both belonged to a flying club. My brother wanted to go out to eat with some other friends about once a week but couldn't pay his dues to the flying club. He finally decided to quit the flying club. (There are actually more details than that but that's all you're going to get.) The point of this is that if
everyone has to pay for the goodies, some of the goodies may become less important. When
everyone has to pay, which goodies become less important will become more apparent.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 28, 2012, 11:08:32 AM
When we finally get to raising taxes, I believe everyone chips in some. Even the bottom.
Not a fan of those originators of Western civilization, then? I didn't know this until recently, but progressive taxation goes all the way back to Athens. After a few hundred years of a flat tax weighing too heavily on the productive class (and at the time, they were far more connected to production than we are now, being without mechanization) they changed it to a progressive system. The folks at the bottom paid zero. Socialists.
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 11:38:53 AM
Not a fan of those originators of Western civilization, then? I didn't know this until recently, but progressive taxation goes all the way back to Athens. After a few hundred years of a flat tax weighing too heavily on the productive class (and at the time, they were far more connected to production than we are now, being without mechanization) they changed it to a progressive system. The folks at the bottom paid zero. Socialists.
In our case, chipping in could mean just a reduction in your earned income credits.
I have stated in the past that I believe in a flat tax with a certain amount at the bottom exempt from income tax for everyone, including gazillionairs. This in fact makes the tax progressive as the bottom level earners would pay little or no tax. Yes, this is just the income tax.
As a for instance: (The numbers chosen are for ease of demonstration. I don't know what the real numbers would be.)
20% tax on any earnings above $10,000.
Someone earning $10,000 pays ZERO
Someone earning $15,000 pays $1000; effective rate is 6.67%
Someone earning $100,000 pays $18,000; effective rate of 18%
Someone earning $1,000,000 pays $198,000; effective rate of 19.8%
Someone earning $45,000,000 pays $8,998,000; effective rate of 19.9955556%
We could continue to pay people for having children by raising the number of tax free dollars for having dependents if we choose.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 28, 2012, 11:46:26 AM
We could continue to pay people for having children by raising the number of tax free dollars for having dependents if we choose.
I'm planning next year to be claiming seven or eight of the TulsaNow posters as dependents already.
Whose your daddy?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 28, 2012, 12:22:00 PM
I'm planning next year to be claiming seven or eight of the TulsaNow posters as dependents already.
Whose your daddy?
Can't tell, it's too embarrassing but I am already claimed.
;D
Something else I didn't find out until last night: how the poverty line is calculated. 3 times what you need to buy the CPI basket of food, apparently. We are not one of the countries that calculates it relative to average income.
We already have a flat tax when all tax is taken into account. Why does it matter if the individual components are not flat?
It's not as if we aren't losing around a trillion dollars a year to tax evasion as it is. Lowering the top tax rate did nothing about that, unfortunately. (I would have expected it to reduce the amount of evasion at least somewhat) That number has only grown since the Bush tax cuts. I'd rather go after the tax evaders first, then see where we stand and make adjustments from there.
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 12:28:39 PM
Something else I didn't find out until last night: how the poverty line is calculated. 3 times what you need to buy the CPI basket of food, apparently. We are not one of the countries that calculates it relative to average income.
Wow! What a clever way to adjust your country's image. A third or fourth world country where 90% of the people cannot feed themselves can base the poverty level on average income and declare that maybe 50% of them are not in poverty. A rich country like the USA could adjust poverty to those without a flat screen TV, a new car every 3 years..... by averaging in the richest. I obviously think setting the poverty level on a cost of living makes more sense.
[/quote]We already have a flat tax when all tax is taken into account.[/quote]
If one buys into all of your premises, which I don't. I understand that we need to fix the way SS works to make it more agreeable to you regarding how it is treated.
QuoteIt's not as if we aren't losing around a trillion dollars a year to tax evasion as it is. ... I'd rather go after the tax evaders first, then see where we stand and make adjustments from there.
I can agree with going after the evaders first. Are you paying your OK state sales tax on internet/mail-order items? I use the easy add on on the OK State Income Tax Form 511.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 28, 2012, 12:46:03 PM
I obviously thing setting the poverty level on a cost of living makes more sense.
I don't have much disagreement with that. The argument goes, however, that the measurement fails to account for regional differences in housing cost or even the large increase in out of pocket medical costs that has arisen since the "three times food" measurement was introduced. Some folks take it further and point out that wealth is largely relative. Should people who have any TV be considered out of poverty? What about those with a $100 wal-mart special flat screen? Should that disqualify them? A car? Or just a car less than a decade old? I can see both sides of the coin. Take the TV for example: It's not
only used for entertainment these days. It has become, sadly, our primary source of news and news-like entertainment.
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 12:58:47 PM
I don't have much disagreement with that. The argument goes, however, that the measurement fails to account for regional differences in housing cost or even the large increase in out of pocket medical costs that has arisen since the "three times food" measurement was introduced. Some folks take it further and point out that wealth is largely relative. Should people who have any TV be considered out of poverty? What about those with a $100 wal-mart special flat screen? Should that disqualify them? A car? Or just a car less than a decade old? I can see both sides of the coin. Take the TV for example: It's not only used for entertainment these days. It has become, sadly, our primary source of news and news-like entertainment.
OK, playing along with the regional concept, how local do you want to take it? What is the poverty level in Malibu Beach, CA? If someone cannot afford to live there do we give them financial assistance or tell them to live somewhere else? 3 baskets of food may not be enough. A $100 TV from Walmart with an antenna is probably justified even if just for news and Stormgasm. Cable or dish, probably not. 53" home entertainment center, definitely not. A car in NYC, definitely not. Money for public transit in NYC, Philly, Boston, maybe. An older car around here, most likely yes. Details and where to draw the line can be quite arbitrary. One of my cousins qualifies for disability due to injuries from a fall on an icy (untreated but nowhere else to walk) sidewalk. In order to get disability benefits, she had to sell her paid-for Bonneville Pontiac and buy a lesser grade car on payments because the Bonneville was deemed to be a luxury car.
Edit: Typos abound today.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 28, 2012, 11:08:32 AM
Your statement depends on who's interpretation of the numbers you believe.
I believe there will be a place where spending will be as low as most Americans will be willing to go. It may not be below present spending levels. I don't know where all the bridges to nowhere are hiding but there are more there. I am sure of that. When we finally get to raising taxes, I believe everyone chips in some. Even the bottom.
Actually, the is not really a whole lot of interpretation in subtracting one number from another and looking at the difference. Most of the world has been doing it for at least a couple thousand years. Well, except for the Murdochian Cult - they obviously don't understand the concept since they continue to say that 2 - 1 is 3. But the REST of the REAL world gets it.
As for rate of change - well, that's just the slope of a line formula, y = mx + b. So easy, even a caveman could do it. But apparently Fox news has no cavemen on payroll.
As for everyone paying income tax - well even the poorest among us pay it - well, they would if corporations paid any, since every single dollar spent on a product from a corporation has the income tax built in. Well,...again, if the corporations paid any tax...
Maybe that would be a good place to start - rather than landing on the poorest and making them lose their earned income credit as the first step, how about just delaying it long enough to get all the corporations and the 1% ers to pay a proportionate percentage first. Then, if the crisis really IS as bad as all that, then let the poor pay kick in a little more. Since they really know how to live with so much less to start, they certainly won't miss it as much as the 1%ers.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 28, 2012, 02:56:49 PM
Actually, the is not really a whole lot of interpretation in subtracting one number from another and looking at the difference. Most of the world has been doing it for at least a couple thousand years. Well, except for the Murdochian Cult - they obviously don't understand the concept since they continue to say that 2 - 1 is 3. But the REST of the REAL world gets it.
I suspect that it's the pesky dollar sign that makes people think that arithmetic suddenly doesn't apply.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 28, 2012, 02:56:49 PM
Actually, the is not really a whole lot of interpretation in subtracting one number from another and looking at the difference.
Try this: (Demonstrates the principle)
Your predecessor spent $100.
You spend $200.
Your successor spends $350.
You have added $100 to spending. You have doubled your predecessor. You increased spending !00% over your predecessor.
Your successor has increased spending by $150 while you only increased spending by $100. He increased spending by $50 more than you did.
If your successor wants to look good, he points out that while you increased spending by 100%, he only increased spending by 75%, (150/200)*100 = 75%. His rate of increase is 25% less than yours.
There are plenty of other accounting tricks to make a case either way.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 28, 2012, 02:56:49 PM
As for everyone paying income tax - well even the poorest among us pay it - well, they would if corporations paid any, since every single dollar spent on a product from a corporation has the income tax built in. Well,...again, if the corporations paid any tax...
And of course the rich don't buy anything so they don't participate in paying the income tax of corporations that do pay income tax.
QuoteMaybe that would be a good place to start - rather than landing on the poorest and making them lose their earned income credit as the first step, how about just delaying it long enough to get all the corporations and the 1% ers to pay a proportionate percentage first.
I don't believe I said anything about making the 99%ers pay first. My vision is to have everyone start paying at the same time.
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 03:14:42 PM
I suspect that it's the pesky dollar sign that makes people think that arithmetic suddenly doesn't apply.
Nah, it's that pesky dollar sign that makes them ignore assumptions about spending and saving.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 28, 2012, 07:04:23 PM
Try this: (Demonstrates the principle)
Your predecessor spent $100.
You spend $200.
Your successor spends $350.
You have added $100 to spending. You have doubled your predecessor. You increased spending !00% over your predecessor.
Your successor has increased spending by $150 while you only increased spending by $100. He increased spending by $50 more than you did.
If your successor wants to look good, he points out that while you increased spending by 100%, he only increased spending by 75%, (150/200)*100 = 75%. His rate of increase is 25% less than yours.
There are plenty of other accounting tricks to make a case either way.
So THAT is where you got all confused! - the reality about deficits and subtraction is this;
Your predecessor spent 110 more than he brought in.
Your predecessor then spent 190 more than he brought in.
Then you spend 160 more than you bring in.
Then 150, and then 110.
The two interesting things in this data - the deficits have been cut almost in half from where they were with predecessor (as well as the change in slope from positive to negative - that is a good thing.) (This is where the simple subtraction comes in!)
And at the same time, the overall increases in total spending are increasing at the lowest rate of the last 50 or 60 years. The slope has gone from tangential asymptote to casual rise.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 29, 2012, 10:08:32 AM
The two interesting things in this data - the deficits have been cut almost in half from where they were with predecessor (as well as the change in slope from positive to negative - that is a good thing.) (This is where the simple subtraction comes in!)
And at the same time, the overall increases in total spending are increasing at the lowest rate of the last 50 or 60 years. The slope has gone from tangential asymptote to casual rise.
Let's forget that most of the bailouts were one time shots. You act like Obama really cut spending. He did nothing of the sort. You know as well as I they (not just just Obama) would have made it permanent if they thought they could get a way with it.
In reality, under Obama the deficit has only decreased by about 17% since the last Bush budget. And is actually higher than the last full year of the Bush administration. If you want to keep ringing that bell go ahead. But I think it has been thoroughly debunked.
Quote from: erfalf on May 29, 2012, 10:18:47 AM
Let's forget that most of the bailouts were one time shots. You act like Obama really cut spending. He did nothing of the sort. You know as well as I they (not just just Obama) would have made it permanent if they thought they could get a way with it.
In reality, under Obama the deficit has only decreased by about 17% since the last Bush budget. And is actually higher than the last full year of the Bush administration. If you want to keep ringing that bell go ahead. But I think it has been thoroughly debunked.
Never said OR implied that he cut spending. What has happened is that deficits are about half (42%), and the rate of growth of spending is the lowest in decades. These are good things in and of themselves.
I would really love to know how you get a 17% number in reductions of 1900 down to 1100. Public school math? Or maybe private, creationist religious school? Real math give 42%, which is close to half.
Well, you certainly have debunked nothing - all you gotta do is look at Federal Debt history to see the numbers I have used. Step away from the "Fox"!!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 28, 2012, 12:22:00 PM
I'm planning next year to be claiming seven or eight of the TulsaNow posters as dependents already.
Whose your daddy?
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSbrtmxQSCk18Jzrue_fVTtYGcqeVLxAGUh-PRw4eTrAxevXbvx)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 29, 2012, 10:26:16 AM
Never said OR implied that he cut spending. What has happened is that deficits are about half (42%),
No spending cuts. Haven't raised taxes. Deficits are down 42%.
Corporations are hoarding money. Unemployment is down but still bad.
Where's the money coming from?
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 29, 2012, 12:53:50 PM
Where's the money coming from?
I'm guessing inheritance.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 29, 2012, 12:53:50 PM
No spending cuts. Haven't raised taxes. Deficits are down 42%.
Corporations are hoarding money. Unemployment is down but still bad.
Where's the money coming from?
The economy is slooooowwwwwwwllllllyyyyyy growing into the situation.
Big mixed bag of carp in the economy. Everywhere but housing and employment there is good news - some. Spend some time actually looking around through this - some of it back to the 50's; http://www.crgraphs.com/
LOTS of good info there. Retail and trade are better than at any time during Bush. Or any time before that, too. Intermodal transportation is down (truck boxes on trains) but truck traffic is big (ATA truck tonnage). Go figure - I would have expected the opposite. But that goes to the increased retail. Drivers I know are busy as a one armed paper hanger - and still being pushed to break the law and drive illegal hours. Like always.
#2 of 9 under GDP graphs - even residential is slightly positive. Go figure on that one, too. Unexpected.
Housing and Construction investment is a catastrophe, and since that is what, about 1/3 or 1/4 of the economy (??) when it is a mess, the economy is a mess. 11 of 15 shows how big the real estate "bubble" was. Crazy, irrational exuberance....
Manufacturing is a bright spot. Kind of. 1 of 8 - the rate of growth of utilization is running about 4 times the Bush era rate. But look at the overall trend - from the 60's. Not good at all as far as I am concerned. But hey, we gotta have our Japan and China made junk....but it is probably better than fighting a war with either one.
Quote from: erfalf on May 29, 2012, 10:18:47 AM
In reality, under Obama the deficit has only decreased by about 17% since the last Bush budget. And is actually higher than the last full year of the Bush administration. If you want to keep ringing that bell go ahead. But I think it has been thoroughly debunked.
No, since FY05, the last (fiscal) year Congressional Republicans were fully in control:
2005-09-30 -318346 (a 22% decrease over the previous year)
2006-09-30 -248181 (-22%)
2007-09-30 -160701 (-35%..amazing what a property bubble can do for revenues!)
2008-09-30 -458553 (+208%)
2009-09-30 -1412688 (+208%)
2010-09-30 -1293489 (-8.4%)
2011-09-30 -1299595 (+0.4%)
So, since Obama was fully in control of spending, it has fallen somewhat and stayed pretty much flat. Not sure where H gets his 42% figure, though.
Quote from: nathanm on May 29, 2012, 03:11:33 PM
No, since FY05, the last (fiscal) year Congressional Republicans were fully in control:
2005-09-30 -318346 (a 22% decrease over the previous year)
2006-09-30 -248181 (-22%)
2007-09-30 -160701 (-35%..amazing what a property bubble can do for revenues!)
2008-09-30 -458553 (+208%)
2009-09-30 -1412688 (+208%)
2010-09-30 -1293489 (-8.4%)
2011-09-30 -1299595 (+0.4%)
So, since Obama was fully in control of spending, it has fallen somewhat and stayed pretty much flat. Not sure where H gets his 42% figure, though.
Same place I have referenced many times - the federal debt history at the Treasury Dept.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
Outstanding debt - no matter what the "waving of hands" about cut this, spent that, here is the final end of year number as defined and reported by the US Treasury.
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
I took the 1.9 trillion from Bush's last year (09/30/2008 thru 09/30/2009) and compared to this last years deficit of about 1.1 trillion. That's a 42% reduction.
(1.9 - 1.1)/1.9 times 100 to get percentage.
(0.8/1.9) x 100 = 42%
By the way, Obama's first deficit was about 1.65 trillion - too big, but a noticeable reduction the first year!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 29, 2012, 03:25:13 PM
Same place I have referenced many times - the federal debt history at the Treasury Dept.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
Outstanding debt - no matter what the "waving of hands" about cut this, spent that, here is the final end of year number as defined and reported by the US Treasury.
Hmm. Interesting. We apparently had a 1.29 trillion deficit that increased the debt 1.6 trillion dollars. Did social security run a $310 billion surplus in FY10? That should be after the wars were brought on budget, so I'm not sure what else it might be.
Quote from: nathanm on May 29, 2012, 03:40:40 PM
Hmm. Interesting. We apparently had a 1.29 trillion deficit that increased the debt 1.6 trillion dollars. Did social security run a $310 billion surplus in FY10? That should be after the wars were brought on budget, so I'm not sure what else it might be.
Some of it also goes to the way Bush had so much reported "off budget" - to hide the cost of the war. So a "reported" deficit is really just smoke and mirrors and a wave of the hand to make some point.
And yes, Social Security was having surpluses up until last year, I think - maybe year before. So depending on what games are played there,...
I like some of the early 1800's reports...
Uh, who here is supporting Bridenstine or Sullivan and why?
If we want to continue to argue debt, deficit, and taxes, I'm sure we've got plenty of other threads available for that.
Oh yeah,
Marshalls!
Quote from: Conan71 on May 29, 2012, 04:16:54 PM
Uh, who here is supporting Bridenstine or Sullivan and why?
If we want to continue to argue debt, deficit, and taxes, I'm sure we've got plenty of other threads available for that.
Oh yeah,
Marshalls!
Not arguing - just reporting - fair and balanced. Unlike the poser's on the TV....
Neither yet. For now, Sullivan has blown it with his embracing Fred Davis as campaign guru (Strategic Perception, Inc). And the fact that he spends more time drunk or in rehab than doing anything for the state of Oklahoma.
Bridenstine - ?? Is museum director enough to give background we need?? (I have a friend who is museum director in another state, and she would be more than qualified, so it is all about him, not the job.) Army veteran with combat zone. The signs are stupid. Need more info.
John Olson has automatic credibility - University of Tulsa, business owner, Army veteran with combat zone. Need more info.
Craig Allen - Who??
Quote from: Conan71 on May 29, 2012, 04:16:54 PM
Uh, who here is supporting Bridenstine or Sullivan and why?
If we want to continue to argue debt, deficit, and taxes, I'm sure we've got plenty of other threads available for that.
Oh yeah,
Marshalls!
Sorry for getting off topic. Let's move the whole debt/deficit thing back to the Spending that DIdn't happen thread or whatever it was called.
I too would like to learn more about Bridenstine as well. Better or worse than Sullivan (not a high bar mind you)?
Quote from: erfalf on May 29, 2012, 04:44:59 PM
Sorry for getting off topic. Let's move the whole debt/deficit thing back to the Spending that DIdn't happen thread or whatever it was called.
I too would like to learn more about Bridenstine as well. Better or worse than Sullivan (not a high bar mind you)?
We haven't heard reports of him stumbling around drunk or going to rehab, so already a step or two better...throw in Fred Davis, and ya got 5 or 6 steps.
Quote from: erfalf on May 29, 2012, 04:44:59 PM
I too would like to learn more about Bridenstine as well.
Ok. He is treasurer of a PAC called "Friends of Jim Bridenstine", formed March 5th, which has reported no receipts or expenditures yet and lists Erik Zoellner as its registered agent. His campaign has itself raised $138,568, 96% of which was from individual donors. This stands in stark contrast to Sullivan, who has thus far raised $797,962, mostly (61%) from PACs, with most of the rest coming from a who's who of lobbyist/special interest front groups.
Bridenstine thus far appears to be raising money from a few local businesses and some old Navy buddies. The top industry donating to him: "Retired". As in retired people, not AARP.
Don't get confused, though. It was "James
A Bridenstine" that donated to Obama's Inauguration, not the one we're talking about now. ;)
Seriously, though, looking at the reports it becomes pretty clear that there's a lot of influence peddling going on. On what planet does a sitting congressman in a safe seat whose competitors have (combined) raised less than $200,000 need a million dollars for a re-election campaign? Sullivan has already spent over a quarter of a million dollars!
In Fred Davis/Jim Inhofe world. There will be lying soon.
I want a SuperPAC!! But I heard that Jon Stewart ran out of his SuperPAC kits!! Oh, the tragedy of it all....
Please. Sullivan is a Teahead. If you support him then you support them....obstrictionists and righties. Not the true type of patriots and not the representation we deserve.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 29, 2012, 04:16:54 PM
Uh, who here is supporting Bridenstine or Sullivan and why?
If we want to continue to argue debt, deficit, and taxes, I'm sure we've got plenty of other threads available for that.
Oh yeah,
Marshalls!
Yea... independents don't count. hahahaha TFB
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 29, 2012, 08:47:58 PM
Yea... independents don't count. hahahaha TFB
Yeah, figures the one election I really want to vote in...
Small sacrifice for no longer being associated with a bunch of bathwater swilling morons in the Oklahoma GOP.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 29, 2012, 08:40:16 PM
not the representation we deserve.
You may want to re-think that last part.
;D
Quote from: Conan71 on May 29, 2012, 08:56:27 PM
Yeah, figures the one election I really want to vote in...
Small sacrifice for no longer being associated with a bunch of bathwater swilling morons in the Oklahoma GOP.
Real people swill Gin.
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 29, 2012, 09:06:44 PM
Real people swill Gin.
;D
Or beer. Really really good beer.
I heard this weekend a debate/shouting match between Bridenstine & Sullivan. Let me just say this, I have never in my life thought that there was single issue/attribute of a candidate that would keep me from voting for them, outside of literally breaking the law or something obvious like that. But after listening to that nonsense, there is no way Sullivan is getting my vote. He is a horses arse. Out of an hour long debate or so, I think he tried to bring up Bridenstine's private voting record (like you and I vote) 15 times. And they would get to shouting about it because Sullivan wouldn't shut up. Sounded like, well, a drunk (which he may have been for all I know). I still don't know a heck of a lot about Bridenstine except that he may or may not have been fired from the Air & Space Museum and he served in the military. It was a pretty sad display of politics.
Quote from: erfalf on June 12, 2012, 08:50:04 AM
I heard this weekend a debate/shouting match between Bridenstine & Sullivan. Let me just say this, I have never in my life thought that there was single issue/attribute of a candidate that would keep me from voting for them, outside of literally breaking the law or something obvious like that. But after listening to that nonsense, there is no way Sullivan is getting my vote. He is a horses arse. Out of an hour long debate or so, I think he tried to bring up Bridenstine's private voting record (like you and I vote) 15 times. And they would get to shouting about it because Sullivan wouldn't shut up. Sounded like, well, a drunk (which he may have been for all I know). I still don't know a heck of a lot about Bridenstine except that he may or may not have been fired from the Air & Space Museum and he served in the military. It was a pretty sad display of politics.
Yep, he's got the Okie in him....
Quote from: erfalf on June 12, 2012, 08:50:04 AM
I heard this weekend a debate/shouting match between Bridenstine & Sullivan. Let me just say this, I have never in my life thought that there was single issue/attribute of a candidate that would keep me from voting for them, outside of literally breaking the law or something obvious like that. But after listening to that nonsense, there is no way Sullivan is getting my vote. He is a horses arse. Out of an hour long debate or so, I think he tried to bring up Bridenstine's private voting record (like you and I vote) 15 times. And they would get to shouting about it because Sullivan wouldn't shut up. Sounded like, well, a drunk (which he may have been for all I know). I still don't know a heck of a lot about Bridenstine except that he may or may not have been fired from the Air & Space Museum and he served in the military. It was a pretty sad display of politics.
Sullivan (the obviously unrepentant alcoholic) is a student of Fred Davis (mentioned earlier) who is also the inspiration for the "dirty tricks" campaigns of Jim Inhofe and others. And also Inhofe's cousin in some way (marriage, birth, etc).
But he is such a "good" public servant, the 1st district keeps on putting him there. I know darn good an well there is something being added to the Tulsa water supply....
Quote from: erfalf on June 12, 2012, 08:50:04 AM
I heard this weekend a debate/shouting match between Bridenstine & Sullivan. Let me just say this, I have never in my life thought that there was single issue/attribute of a candidate that would keep me from voting for them, outside of literally breaking the law or something obvious like that. But after listening to that nonsense, there is no way Sullivan is getting my vote. He is a horses arse. Out of an hour long debate or so, I think he tried to bring up Bridenstine's private voting record (like you and I vote) 15 times. And they would get to shouting about it because Sullivan wouldn't shut up. Sounded like, well, a drunk (which he may have been for all I know). I still don't know a heck of a lot about Bridenstine except that he may or may not have been fired from the Air & Space Museum and he served in the military. It was a pretty sad display of politics.
Sadly, this obstructionist and admitted alcoholic has what's known as "dry drunkenness," a state of permanent inebriation, which basically makes him a nice guy but a lousy public official. Outside of securing minor Federal funding for the local jail, please explain what he's done for the first district. It appears to
TTC me the "powers that be" in the Republican Party appreciate having a friend in Congress. By doing so, they advocate for obstructionism, side tracking, politicizing, lying, and filiblustering. He may find out that many in his potty are tired of weak legislating and inaction.
Heir, yes...it's called fluoride. No alternatives....DON'T DRINK THE WATER!!!
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 12, 2012, 11:07:12 AM
Sadly, this obstructionist and admitted alcoholic has what's known as "dry drunkenness," a state of permanent inebriation, which basically makes him a nice guy but a lousy public official.
So that's Obama's problem. Thank you!
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 11:39:43 AM
So that's Obama's problem. Thank you!
Hey Conan, do you know what they title someone who lies constantly? You're getting there....
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 12, 2012, 11:46:43 AM
Hey Conan, do you know what they title someone who lies constantly? You're getting there....
Binge drinker, drug addict? Same past as Bush II or Sullivan, why is it Obama isn't a dry drunk? Because he's your guy? Oh wait, he's a wet drunk is that it?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 11:58:42 AM
Binge drinker, drug addict? Same past as Bush II or Sullivan, why is it Obama isn't a dry drunk? Because he's your guy? Oh wait, he's a wet drunk is that it?
I've only met Barack once. I didn't detect any poison on him. Sully? Let's no go there.
I believe POTUS Obama's drug of choice might be Provigil. It would be mine if I had his duty to country.
You need to get off the bath salts and beer, Coco Loco.
I think Sullivan was going after the "number of times" Bridenstein has voted in recent elections because he knew Bridenstein was going to mention how often Sullivan has NOT voted for some reason or another (doesn't he have one of the worst congressional voting records?). Someone the other day mentioned to me that we should at least keep Sullivan because of his seniority, but then I was like "What good is seniority if you don't show up and vote, do not head up or are not on any committees, (is he even allowed to be on them anymore, and if so why isn't he with all that seniority?) etc.? The guy doesn't seem to do anything but collect a paycheck and come up with nuisance regulations/government intrusions that benefit his donors and hurt others. (can get into that later). My question might be then, do we want a Republican in office like Bridenstein that might actually show up and do something? lol
Quote from: TheArtist on June 12, 2012, 01:11:16 PM
I think Sullivan was going after the "number of times" Bridenstein has voted in recent elections because he knew Bridenstein was going to mention how often Sullivan has NOT voted for some reason or another (doesn't he have one of the worst congressional voting records?). Someone the other day mentioned to me that we should at least keep Sullivan because of his seniority, but then I was like "What good is seniority if you don't show up and vote, do not head up or are not on any committees, (is he even allowed to be on them anymore, and if so why isn't he with all that seniority?) etc.? The guy doesn't seem to do anything but collect a paycheck and come up with nuisance regulations/government intrusions that benefit his donors and hurt others. (can get into that later). My question might be then, do we want a Republican in office like Bridenstein that might actually show up and do something? lol
I think Artist nailed it.
Quote from: TheArtist on June 12, 2012, 01:11:16 PM
I think Sullivan was going after the "number of times" Bridenstein has voted in recent elections because he knew Bridenstein was going to mention how often Sullivan has NOT voted for some reason or another (doesn't he have one of the worst congressional voting records?). Someone the other day mentioned to me that we should at least keep Sullivan because of his seniority, but then I was like "What good is seniority if you don't show up and vote, do not head up or are not on any committees, (is he even allowed to be on them anymore, and if so why isn't he with all that seniority?) etc.? The guy doesn't seem to do anything but collect a paycheck and come up with nuisance regulations/government intrusions that benefit his donors and hurt others. (can get into that later). My question might be then, do we want a Republican in office like Bridenstein that might actually show up and do something? lol
I'm sure you're right about the attendance. They did discuss seniority. Bridenstine was trying to hit him on him supporting term limits, but he keeps running. Sullivan rightly countered by saying that seniority is necessary often times to get on important committees, so he's not going to sabotage Oklahoma's chance on getting on these committees. Personally, I don't think it is hypocritical to clamor for term limits then not stop running. It's like me not thinking we should be subsidizing businesses as a city, but if we stop, we're screwed because no one else is going to stop. Then, Bridenstine says well, you're not the head of any committees. Of course Sullivan is on the Energy and Commerce committee, one of the most important where spots on it are highly coveted. Odds are he wouldn't be head of that one, regardless of his record. The current head has been in office 25 years vs Sullivan's almost 10 years.
Honestly, regardless of why Sullivan brought it up, it was just nauseating to hear him act so unprofessional. It's no wonder Dem's & Repub's can't get along when two guys on the same side of the aisle can't even get along.
I was looking at his Wikipedia page, and it indicates that he voted to make the PATRIOT Act permanent, without any future option for Congressional review or revocation, which fortunately didn't happen. I didn't think any Congress could bind a future Congress, no matter what. Although everyone keeps extending it, so whatever...
Bottom line on Sullivan is he's actually a fairly nice guy when you get him out of his role as a Congressman. Professionally and intellectually, he's fairly dim which is ideal for a follower type. He's the one who will toe the party line and go along to get along because many concepts are simply lost on him. He's not a leader and never will be. To borrow from David Brinkley's comments on Bill Clinton: "He's never had an original thought in his life".
Sullivan should welcome the opportunity to retire at 47 or 48 with a nice pension and full benefits, plus have the opportunity to make vastly more on K street or some government bureau back home in Oklahoma. He's got the Okie in him after all.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 02:10:43 PM
Bottom line on Sullivan is he's actually a fairly nice guy when you get him out of his role as a Congressman. Professionally and intellectually, he's fairly dim which is ideal for a follower type. He's the one who will toe the party line and go along to get along because many concepts are simply lost on him. He's not a leader and never will be. To borrow from David Brinkley's comments on Bill Clinton: "He's never had an original thought in his life".
Sullivan should welcome the opportunity to retire at 47 or 48 with a nice pension and full benefits, plus have the opportunity to make vastly more on K street or some government bureau back home in Oklahoma. He's got the Okie in him after all.
He'll never live that one down...
Quote from: Hoss on June 12, 2012, 02:51:36 PM
He'll never live that one down...
Nor should he...
Quote from: Hoss on June 12, 2012, 02:51:36 PM
He'll never live that one down...
Kind of a dirty Pinocchio thing.
Quote from: Townsend on June 12, 2012, 02:53:35 PM
Kind of a dirty Pinocchio thing.
Yeah, reminds me of a joke where a German is talking to an attractive woman as they are sharing a ride in a cab...
Bridenstine should have worn this:
(http://rlv.zcache.com/really_okie_t_shirt-p235593420119947820zv75e_400.jpg)
TW editorial post on FB:
Quote"Sullivan is an honest, hard-working congressman with the knowledge and experience to do the best job for the 1st District. On June 26, Republicans need to give John Sullivan a chance to do that job."
Quote from: Townsend on June 14, 2012, 04:39:50 PM
TW editorial post on FB:
Well that settles it then.
I heard on local radio talking about groups supporting Sullivan and Bridenstine. Those supporting the latter could be optometrists and chiropractors; anyone know why?
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2012, 08:07:33 PM
Well that settles it then.
I heard on local radio talking about groups supporting Sullivan and Bridenstine. Those supporting the latter could be optometrists and chiropractors; anyone know why?
Sullivan scratched their itch. I'm interested to hear more about Bridenstine's background at TASM. Sully has tried to disparage his tenure there.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2012, 08:21:07 PM
Sullivan scratched their itch. I'm interested to hear more about Bridenstine's background at TASM. Sully has tried to disparage his tenure there.
You really want Sully to win. I don't care, but believe Sully is an obstructionist. He's turned into a teahead.
I bet Sully loses by one vote....yours. ;D
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 15, 2012, 12:01:40 AM
You really want Sully to win. I don't care, but believe Sully is an obstructionist. He's turned into a teahead.
I bet Sully loses by one vote....yours. ;D
Unfortunately I don't get to vote in this one. It's time for Sullivan to be retired and explore other career opportunities.
Bates is hitting pretty hard on this one.
http://www.batesline.com/
Mudschlock is involved in Bridenstine's campaign? Say it ain't so Jim!
I really don't see belaboring the point of personal voting records since Bridenstine wasn't being paid to show up to vote and author legislation. Does exercising or not exercising one's right to vote indicate what sort of legislator they will be? Did he suddenly have an epiphany that he needed to become more politically active or is someone with an agenda footing his bill?
It's an easy deflection for the Sullivan camp, but I think time would be better spent analyzing Sullivan's voting record or lack thereof and what he's actually contributed in terms of drafting legislation which benefits his constituents back home in his district. Having the third worst voting record of all GOP representatives is nothing to be proud of.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 15, 2012, 09:42:41 AM
Bates is hitting pretty hard on this one.
http://www.batesline.com/
Sullivan has been buying ads on the Batesline website for a while. Not surpisingly, Bates is attacking Bridenstine.
Got a flyer today. I'm having trouble pulling up to verify the records but it appears Bridenstine didn't register to vote until he was 23 and since then he has only voted in 1 out of ever 3 elections. Elections he skipped include presidential and governor races.
Whoops
I look at this election this way, better to stick with the devil you know rather than the devil you don't know. It really concerns me Bridenstine trying to run to the right of Sullivan. You would almost have to be a member of the Taliban to do that.
I wish the Democrats would run someone like Dan Boren but the Democrats are in such disarray in Oklahoma no such candidate appears to be on the horizon.
Disclosure: yes I am a Republican have been for 42 years. But I voted for Doug Dodd twice and Georgianna Oliver when they ran for Sullivan's seat. I have known Dan Sullivan since he was a State Representative and was very surprised when he ran for Congress and that he won because I have never been impressed with his intelligence even back then.
Predictions please....
looks to me like Sully gets central Tulsa while BrideofStine gets outlying areas.
This story may get National interest should Sully go down to defeat after carrying Norquist's water....
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 25, 2012, 12:09:46 PM
Predictions please....
looks to me like Sully gets central Tulsa while BrideofStine gets outlying areas.
This story may get National interest should Sully go down to defeat after carrying Norquist's water....
Sully will stay.
Quote from: Townsend on June 14, 2012, 04:39:50 PM
TW editorial post on FB:
A TW endorsement is pretty much a nail in the coffin.
Quote from: Townsend on June 25, 2012, 12:13:28 PM
Sully will stay.
John has done a good job of sullying Bridenstine. Anyone know if there's any merit to the claims that Bridenstine wasn't that great a leader at TASM?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 25, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
John has done a good job of sullying Bridenstine. Anyone know if there's any merit to the claims that Bridenstine wasn't that great a leader at TASM?
Oh please. We've been over the parking fiasco.
Anyone know if there's any merit to the claims Sully's done zilch for Teatown?
Is there a worthwhile candidate from either party this go-round?
The ads are poo.
Quote from: Townsend on June 25, 2012, 02:13:16 PM
Is there a worthwhile candidate from either party this go-round?
The ads are poo.
No. Tay is not running.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 25, 2012, 01:26:38 PM
Oh please. We've been over the parking fiasco.
Anyone know if there's any merit to the claims Sully's done zilch for Teatown?
Apparently we haven't been over it because I have no clue what you are talking about. I'm a Bridenstine fan, but I'm trying to figure out if there's merit to what Sully has been slinging at him in terms of his tenure at TASM.
I kind of felt like bringing up Bridenstine's personal voting record was a pitiful come-back for Sullivan not doing the job he's been paid to do. Third worst voting record of all GOP members? If I showed up to work 90% of the time, I'd have been fired years ago.
Aside from this race, anyone else notice many of the GOP candidates are touting military service as if it's some sort of a pre-requisite. Well God 'n' guns too.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 25, 2012, 03:04:28 PM
Apparently we haven't been over it because I have no clue what you are talking about. I'm a Bridenstine fan, but I'm trying to figure out if there's merit to what Sully has been slinging at him in terms of his tenure at TASM.
I kind of felt like bringing up Bridenstine's personal voting record was a pitiful come-back for Sullivan not doing the job he's been paid to do. Third worst voting record of all GOP members? If I showed up to work 90% of the time, I'd have been fired years ago.
Aside from this race, anyone else notice many of the GOP candidates are touting military service as if it's some sort of a pre-requisite. Well God 'n' guns too.
Just keep in mind where Sullivan gets his information - Fred Davis, campaign designer - Jim Inhofe's cousin. Strategic Perception, Inc.
Add the drunken haze that he lives in and there will be no issue from TASM.
I think Sullivan had said that TASM had some of the worst attendance records under Bridenstine and that he had been fired from TASM? Then have heard that TASM released a statement saying that both were absolutely false, TASM actually had some of its highest attendance with Bridenstine there and that he had not been fired. Also, wasn't one of the reasons for Bridenstines missing a lot of votes in Oklahoma was because he was stationed in Florida while he was in the military and voted there for a while (not to mention his overseas service)? Regardless, it's one thing to be in the Military and not vote as much and be in Congress and not vote as much. I mean really.
Quote from: TheArtist on June 25, 2012, 06:10:40 PM
I think Sullivan had said that TASM had some of the worst attendance records under Bridenstine and that he had been fired from TASM? Then have heard that TASM released a statement saying that both were absolutely false, TASM actually had some of its highest attendance with Bridenstine there and that he had not been fired. Also, wasn't one of the reasons for Bridenstines missing a lot of votes in Oklahoma was because he was stationed in Florida while he was in the military and voted there for a while (not to mention his overseas service)? Regardless, it's one thing to be in the Military and not vote as much and be in Congress and not vote as much. I mean really.
Thanks for setting that straight. I'm not trusting much which comes from the Sullivan campaign. I did hear a rebuttal by Bridenstine that the tax records for TASM were misinterpreted and really did not corroborate a drop in attendance. Even if there was, what if ad budgets had been cut, and what impact would the slowdown in the economy have on attendance?
Quote from: TheArtist on June 25, 2012, 06:10:40 PM
I think Sullivan had said that TASM had some of the worst attendance records under Bridenstine and that he had been fired from TASM? Then have heard that TASM released a statement saying that both were absolutely false, TASM actually had some of its highest attendance with Bridenstine there and that he had not been fired. Also, wasn't one of the reasons for Bridenstines missing a lot of votes in Oklahoma was because he was stationed in Florida while he was in the military and voted there for a while (not to mention his overseas service)? Regardless, it's one thing to be in the Military and not vote as much and be in Congress and not vote as much. I mean really.
That's been Sullivan all along...
For those of you who still have not voted yet today:
QuoteThe Tulsa Air and Space Museum is neither for nor against any candidate in any election. Certain statements have been made by others outside of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and the Tulsa Air and Space Museum wishes to clarify certain facts: Jim Bridenstine was employed at the Tulsa Air and Space Museum as its Executive Director from December 2008 through August 20, 2010. While at the Tulsa Air and Space Museum, Jim Bridenstine developed the QuikTrip Air and Rocket Racing Show and the Land the Shuttle Campaign, both of which garnered tremendous visibility for the Tulsa Air and Space Museum. While Mr. Bridenstine was executive director attendance increased at the museum. In August 2010 Mr. Bridenstine voluntarily resigned from his position as Executive Director at the Tulsa Air and Space Museum in order to follow his orders in the Navy Reserves. Mr. Bridenstine was not terminated from the Tulsa Air and Space Museum.
- Barbara Smallwood
Quote from: Gaspar on June 25, 2012, 02:28:15 PM
No. Tay is not running.
I wonder what has happened to one of Tulsa's high profile citizens?
There have been plenty of bike and running events around town.
He may have relocated his talents to a more accepting society.
Was there a new documentary on him named "Paul"
or was that a different alien?
Quote from: DolfanBob on June 26, 2012, 10:44:47 AM
I wonder what has happened to one of Tulsa's high profile citizens?
There have been plenty of bike and running events around town.
He may have relocated his talents to a more accepting society.
Was there a new documentary on him named "Paul"
or was that a different alien?
Perhaps the new meds are working?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 26, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
For those of you who still have not voted yet today:
Just more Sullivan lies.
I want Sully to close the gap and wind up short by one vote so that Conan feels bad about leaving the GOP. Damn, it looks like less than 20,000 voted in the primary. Talk about a disheveled party. Were it not for Citizens United, they'd be broke too.
Apathy or inherent laziness?
Now they're saying the election board isinept ::) slow in getting out the numbers...%49 reporting and it looks like there will be over 40,000 voters. My bad.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 26, 2012, 08:51:19 PM
I want Sully to close the gap and wind up short by one vote so that Conan feels bad about leaving the GOP. Damn, it looks like less than 20,000 voted in the primary. Talk about a disheveled party. Were it not for Citizens United, they'd be broke too.
Apathy or inherent laziness?
If I had voted Sully would have lost by two votes under your scenario. Can you imagine the nasty re-count?
Around 2pm, they said we were on target for about a 13% turn-out.
So much for the Tea Potty mobilizing voters. Romney better hope they are more enthusiastic come November. Is this an unusual time for our Congressional primaries, or is it always in late June?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 26, 2012, 10:33:23 PM
If I had voted Sully would have lost by two votes under your scenario. Can you imagine the nasty re-count?
Around 2pm, they said we were on target for about a 13% turn-out.
So much for the Tea Potty mobilizing voters. Romney better hope they are more enthusiastic come November. Is this an unusual time for our Congressional primaries, or is it always in late June?
%13 ... wow. That sez something in itself. You're not blaming the heat are you? They'll come out in droves to vote against the black President.
And are you saying you'd have voted for the BrideofStine? :o I don't think so...
I can't believe you called them the tea potty. Change has come to America. ;)
After five terms. The people have spoken! or colored in little boxes.....but none the less. Sullivan no longer on the Government teat.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 27, 2012, 12:41:58 AM
%13 ... wow. That sez something in itself. You're not blaming the heat are you? They'll come out in droves to vote against the black President.
And are you saying you'd have voted for the BrideofStine? :o I don't think so...
I can't believe you called them the tea potty. Change has come to America. ;)
Not the heat, summer vacation time.
There's no way in Hell I would have voted to send Sullivan back to DC. Nice guy, he's mediocre legislator at best and the GOP establishment loved him because he was a perfect lemming.
Doug Dodd or Cathy Keating could have nipped his budding political career in the bud if juvenile records were fair game. He was quite the thug back in high school.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 26, 2012, 10:33:23 PM
If I had voted Sully would have lost by two votes under your scenario. Can you imagine the nasty re-count?
Around 2pm, they said we were on target for about a 13% turn-out.
So much for the Tea Potty mobilizing voters. Romney better hope they are more enthusiastic come November. Is this an unusual time for our Congressional primaries, or is it always in late June?
I believe this was the earliest primary ever in Oklahoma. And it was a scorcher. And nothing particularly significant was on the ballot (i.e. no senators or governors). It was a pretty low turnout. I doubt however, that it had any significant bearing on the outcome. Mostly, I think people are willing to take that chance on something they don't know because they are so sick of what they do know.
Congrats to Bridenstine, but I still have little knowledge of what he is about. Being Okie (or whatever Bridenstine's version of that is) just doesn't mean anything to me.
Quote from: erfalf on June 27, 2012, 09:13:50 AM
Congrats to Bridenstine, but I still have little knowledge of what he is about. Being Okie (or whatever Bridenstine's version of that is) just doesn't mean anything to me.
I don't know the guy. I have no faith in any politician elected in Oklahoma so the good news is anything positive will be a welcome surprise. The bad news is, I have no faith in any politician elected in Oklahoma.
Well, we know what we've gotten from Sullivan and that's a less than acceptable attendance record.
If I were him, I'd be happy with a cushy new gig on K Street and a killer pension with benefits.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 27, 2012, 09:36:39 AM
If I were him, I'd be happy with a cushy new gig on K Street and a killer pension with benefits.
I'd imagine that's what he's being told by the "they".
Quote from: Townsend on June 27, 2012, 09:37:37 AM
I'd imagine that's what he's being told by the "they".
Ohhhh noooos! Not teh "they" again!
Looks like someone got confused and panicked.
Bridenstine Votes Against Boehnerhttp://kwgs.com/post/bridenstine-votes-against-boehner (http://kwgs.com/post/bridenstine-votes-against-boehner)
QuoteOn his first day on the job, Tulsa's new Congressman has split with the rest of the Oklahoma House delegation.
Jim Bridenstine was one of only nine republicans, nationally, who voted against John Boehner for another term as speaker of the house. The rest of the Oklahoma delegation voted for Boehner, including new 2nd District Congressman Markwayne Mullin.
Bridenstine voted for Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor.
Quote from: Townsend on January 03, 2013, 03:21:11 PM
Looks like someone got confused and panicked.
Bridenstine Votes Against Boehner
http://kwgs.com/post/bridenstine-votes-against-boehner (http://kwgs.com/post/bridenstine-votes-against-boehner)
Maybe this is a good sign he's not a Tea-Bot.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 03, 2013, 03:23:03 PM
Maybe this is a good sign he's not a Tea-Bot.
I think the tea party wants Boehner gone.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 03, 2013, 03:23:03 PM
Maybe this is a good sign he's not a Tea-Bot.
Actually I think its more of a sign that he is.
Quote from: Hoss on January 03, 2013, 04:51:07 PM
Actually I think its more of a sign that he is.
Are we assuming there are only 9 TP loyalists left in the House? Seems a bit of a stretch to me, considering the TP supposedly still carries a lot of clout. Who did Bachmann vote for?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 04, 2013, 10:08:43 AM
Who did Bachmann vote for?
A hotdog. She has no idea.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 03, 2013, 03:23:03 PM
Maybe this is a good sign he's not a Tea-Bot.
He's starting out just about like what I expected. No big fan of Boehner, but at least he CAN be rational if he is forced to it.
Apparently not Bridenstine. Well, that is pretty much what Inhofe did for so many years - and Oklahoma suffered for it due to MANY lost opportunities to have a real input in the the process and maybe get a good committee position. Yay, Bridenstine - keep in mind who you represent... NOT the citizens of the first district! Who were his big donors??