After seeing a 10 second clip I had the urge to scream " SMILE TURTLE SMILE " My gosh is he stiff.

I do think Grimes helped herself on the coal issue in this debate.

 

On style and presentation, Grimes clearly won.

 

Otherwise, I think the issues will divide votes along party lines for the most part.

 

Based on what I saw tonight, Grimes needs to put out some TV ads with her talking directly to the voters. She really handled herself well and is a forceful speaker.

 

 

I realize that our biases cause us to somewhat see things the way we went to see them, but I thought Grimes was extremely rude during the portion of the debate I watched (unfortunately, I only got to catch the tail end; working on my dang taxes until then). What you consider forceful, I considered unnecessary combative to the point of being evasive. She interrupted both McConnell and the moderator on several occasions, which drives me nuts every time regardless of who does it (maybe McConnell did so earlier in the debate). My take away was that she was desperate and flustered, and not yet ready for the big time and lacking on the fine skills and arts of persuasion. McConnell instead sat back and remained stoic and calm. He did have a stupid grin on his face like the cat that had just swallowed the pet parakeet though.

 

He kept beating her on being someone that will support Obama if she gets elected; she kept being him on being someone that has been up there for 30 years and thus is responsible for the mess in DC.

 

I have no idea if Grimes will be supportive of Obama if she gets elected. No one other than she can know that for certain. So McConnell may be wrong on that charge.

 

But I do know that if you disagree with President Obama's policies, in my opinion you can't say that McConnell is responsible for the mess in DC. At least not the mess caused by President Obama's policies. I'm sure there are some Tea Party members that say McConnell should have never compromised on any thing and McConnell should have taken President Obama to the mat on everything, and that caused the mess in DC. That's the black and white (and in my opinion unrealistic and impractical) world that the far right lives in (the far left lives there also, just on the other side of the planet). Then again, there are more moderate folks out there that say there was not enough willingness to compromise, which resulted in a constant state of "stalement", and that caused the mess in DC.

 

Being in Congress these days is a very tough balancing act because of the very different view points present in the US these days. Particularly when you are in a leadership position and have to be concerned about not only the issue at hand but the impact your position on a specific issue has on future issues.

 

It's quite easy to judge from the peanut gallery. It's true in sports; it's true in politics; and its true in every other aspect of life. Heck, just from my time on the KHSAA BOC and having read thread after thread on here about how the KHSAA screwed this up and screwed that up. 99% of the posters on here didn't have a clue about the facts of a particular decision and didn't have a clue about how a specific decision impacted other decisions. Did my best within privacy and other limitations to educate, but some members of the peanut gallery kept on roaring. Frankly, I think McConnell has done a pretty artful job opposing President Obama's policies. I'm sure that some will disagree on me, but McConnell has a well deserved reputation as being one of the shrewdest members of Congress. I genuinely doubt any Republican could have done a better job of opposing President Obama's policies.

 

Do I agree with every decision made and every position taken by McConnell? Nope. But I am sympathetic and understanding of the extremely difficult position he has been in as the Senate Minority Leader.

 

For me at least, it's almost impossible to believe that Grimes will be in a position, as a newly elected Democratic Senator, from stopping President Obama's policies from being implemented or reversing them. If she even tries, she will be placed on an island so distant from influence that she might as well blow up a volleyball and call it Wilson. McConnell, if re-elected, will have a much greater ability to stop President Obama's policies, particularly if the Senate goes Republican.

 

Crunching it down to one sentence: if you are opposed to President Obama and his policies, you vote for McConnell as you are certain he'll do everything within his powers and abilities to likewise oppose. It's that simple for me.

I realize that our biases cause us to somewhat see things the way we went to see them, but I thought Grimes was extremely rude during the portion of the debate I watched (unfortunately, I only got to catch the tail end; working on my dang taxes until then). What you consider forceful, I considered unnecessary combative to the point of being evasive. She interrupted both McConnell and the moderator on several occasions, which drives me nuts every time regardless of who does it (maybe McConnell did so earlier in the debate). My take away was that she was desperate and flustered, and not yet ready for the big time and lacking on the fine skills and arts of persuasion. McConnell instead sat back and remained stoic and calm. He did have a stupid grin on his face like the cat that had just swallowed the pet parakeet though.

 

He kept beating her on being someone that will support Obama if she gets elected; she kept being him on being someone that has been up there for 30 years and thus is responsible for the mess in DC.

 

I have no idea if Grimes will be supportive of Obama if she gets elected. No one other than she can know that for certain. So McConnell may be wrong on that charge.

 

But I do know that if you disagree with President Obama's policies, in my opinion you can't say that McConnell is responsible for the mess in DC. At least not the mess caused by President Obama's policies. I'm sure there are some Tea Party members that say McConnell should have never compromised on any thing and McConnell should have taken President Obama to the mat on everything, and that caused the mess in DC. That's the black and white (and in my opinion unrealistic and impractical) world that the far right lives in (the far left lives there also, just on the other side of the planet). Then again, there are more moderate folks out there that say there was not enough willingness to compromise, which resulted in a constant state of "stalement", and that caused the mess in DC.

 

Being in Congress these days is a very tough balancing act because of the very different view points present in the US these days. Particularly when you are in a leadership position and have to be concerned about not only the issue at hand but the impact your position on a specific issue has on future issues.

 

It's quite easy to judge from the peanut gallery. It's true in sports; it's true in politics; and its true in every other aspect of life. Heck, just from my time on the KHSAA BOC and having read thread after thread on here about how the KHSAA screwed this up and screwed that up. 99% of the posters on here didn't have a clue about the facts of a particular decision and didn't have a clue about how a specific decision impacted other decisions. Did my best within privacy and other limitations to educate, but some members of the peanut gallery kept on roaring. Frankly, I think McConnell has done a pretty artful job opposing President Obama's policies. I'm sure that some will disagree on me, but McConnell has a well deserved reputation as being one of the shrewdest members of Congress. I genuinely doubt any Republican could have done a better job of opposing President Obama's policies.

 

Do I agree with every decision made and every position taken by McConnell? Nope. But I am sympathetic and understanding of the extremely difficult position he has been in as the Senate Minority Leader.

 

For me at least, it's almost impossible to believe that Grimes will be in a position, as a newly elected Democratic Senator, from stopping President Obama's policies from being implemented or reversing them. If she even tries, she will be placed on an island so distant from influence that she might as well blow up a volleyball and call it Wilson. McConnell, if re-elected, will have a much greater ability to stop President Obama's policies, particularly if the Senate goes Republican.

 

Crunching it down to one sentence: if you are opposed to President Obama and his policies, you vote for McConnell as you are certain he'll do everything within his powers and abilities to likewise oppose. It's that simple for me.

What about those of us who don't live in Ft. Thomas and generally approve of the president's policies. Should we vote for ol' Mitch too?

What about those of us who don't live in Ft. Thomas and generally approve of the president's policies. Should we vote for ol' Mitch too?

 

Please don't bring a toothpick to a gunfight.

What about those of us who don't live in Ft. Thomas and generally approve of the president's policies. Should we vote for ol' Mitch too?

 

Or you could just vote for the candidate whose views best align with your own. Seems like the logical thing to do.

Because Grimes says that a family of 4 cannot live on minimum wage. I contend that a someone who is making minimum wage has no business starting a family.

 

So, exactly at what point in one's lifetime economic cycle is acceptable to start a family?

Because Grimes says that a family of 4 cannot live on minimum wage. I contend that a someone who is making minimum wage has no business starting a family.

Besides poor people, what other groups of people should be restricted from starting families? Think it over. Don't answer too quickly.

Besides poor people, what other groups of people should be restricted from starting families? Think it over. Don't answer too quickly.

 

What do I have to think about?

 

IMO, if you are making $7.25/hour, you can barely feed and house yourself, let alone take on the responsibility of a wife and kids.

 

As Michael Jackson said, "if you can't feed your baby, then don't have a baby."

So, exactly at what point in one's lifetime economic cycle is acceptable to start a family?

 

 

When they can afford to do so without additional help from the government.

Besides poor people, what other groups of people should be restricted from starting families? Think it over. Don't answer too quickly.

 

Sorry but that's not what she said. You can twist it like you always do and make your drive by posts but the FACT is someone making $15,000 is not in a position to have kids. Accidents happen but anyone that makes a conscience decision to do so is a fool.

I contend that a someone who is making minimum wage has no business starting a family.

 

It isn't the wisest thing to do.

What do I have to think about?

 

IMO, if you are making $7.25/hour, you can barely feed and house yourself, let alone take on the responsibility of a wife and kids.

 

As Michael Jackson said, "if you can't feed your baby, then don't have a baby."

 

 

I hate to tell you, but gosh...some people are not ever going to be middle class. There are people who have life circumstances that just aren't going to be overcome and they will work low wage jobs because that's what's available or what their skills match. We need those people in our workforce. They power a lot of needed jobs. They wash the dishes at the restaurants you dine in. They clean up the trash in the ball stadiums you go to watch games in. They clean the rooms in hotels you stay in. And yes...a lot of these people are "lifers" in those jobs. And since 2.5% of $7.25 is .18, it's going to be a long time to earn their way out of those jobs. But for many reasons, some people will only be a housekeeper, or a dishwasher, or mow your lawn for your lawn service. Are you saying that until they earn $X/year they should avoid starting families?

 

Wow...not the world I want to live in.

It isn't the wisest thing to do.

So money is an indicator of who does and doesn't make a good parent?

I don't think so.

What do I have to think about?

 

IMO, if you are making $7.25/hour, you can barely feed and house yourself, let alone take on the responsibility of a wife and kids.

 

As Michael Jackson said, "if you can't feed your baby, then don't have a baby."

 

My thoughts.

 

Many people simply wait until their circumstances are such that they can give a child all the support it requires. Others work 2 or 3 jobs in order to afford a child. Still others don't think and simply bring a child into the world and expect others to take care of that child.

I hate to tell you, but gosh...some people are not ever going to be middle class. There are people who have life circumstances that just aren't going to be overcome and they will work low wage jobs because that's what's available or what their skills match. We need those people in our workforce. They power a lot of needed jobs. They wash the dishes at the restaurants you dine in. They clean up the trash in the ball stadiums you go to watch games in. They clean the rooms in hotels you stay in. And yes...a lot of these people are "lifers" in those jobs. And since 2.5% of $7.25 is .18, it's going to be a long time to earn their way out of those jobs. But for many reasons, some people will only be a housekeeper, or a dishwasher, or mow your lawn for your lawn service. Are you saying that until they earn $X/year they should avoid starting families?

 

Wow...not the world I want to live in.

 

Have all the children they can support. I'm good with it.