Grayson losing also surprised me. Especially as bad as he did.

Grayson losing also surprised me. Especially as bad as he did.

 

I'm not surprised he lost, but as you said, very surprised by the margin. A year ago, I didn't think anybody--Democrat or Republican--would be able to beat him. Will be interesting to see how the race turns out in the fall.

I'm not surprised he lost, but as you said, very surprised by the margin. A year ago, I didn't think anybody--Democrat or Republican--would be able to beat him. Will be interesting to see how the race turns out in the fall.

 

I agree on the year ago comment.

 

And think that this Senate race may become the most watched Senate race in the country. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't merit a visit from O to the Bluegrass.

And think that this Senate race may become the most watched Senate race in the country.

 

Agree. Is it because Rand is Ron's son, or because he's associated with the Tea Party & got Sarah's endorsement, or because Mitch endorsed Grayson & he got hammered anyway?

Agree. Is it because Rand is Ron's son, or because he's associated with the Tea Party & got Sarah's endorsement, or because Mitch endorsed Grayson & he got hammered anyway?

 

Rand's son, yes.

Tea Party & Sarah Palin, yes.

Mitch, NO!!

But most importantly, a race that both sides will think they can win in what is going to be a tight race to gain control of the Senate.

Rand's son, yes.

Tea Party & Sarah Palin, yes.

Mitch, NO!!

But most importantly, a race that both sides will think they can win in what is going to be a tight race to gain control of the Senate.

 

Good point on the last one. Feel like an idiot for not thinking of that.

 

Not knowing where Conway stands on some things, I think it would be interesting to see how Rand would operate as a Senator. I kind of like those guys that go against the establishment, and he seems to be the type that will do that.

I'm with LBBC on this one.

 

I don't see it as selecting an official based on a single issue. There have been numerous pro-life candidates who would not get my vote. For me, I see a pro-abortion candidate and he/she automatically doesn't get my vote. To some that might be the same thing, but I see it differently. The abortion issue is and always will be the first thing I look at before voting. Pro-life doesn't guarantee my vote, but pro-abortion loses it.

 

If the candidate is pro-life, but takes dumb stands on other issues, such as the ones you mentioned, they don't get my vote. GWB's spending habits soured me to a large extent, and I doubt I would have voted for him if '04 was his first term & '08 had been his shot at a second. But I can never and will never vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

 

Semantics. You use abortion as the litmus test for your vote.

 

Lets say you have two candidates. One is pro-choice but middle-of-the-road on the economy. The other is pro-life but, as you say, "takes dumb stands on other issues" who gets your vote?

LOVE how you worded that!!!!!!!!

 

And see if I would have gone to bed, I would have missed that!!!:lol::lol::lol:

 

So you would abstain from voting if the pro-life candidate had other policies that you disagreed with?

Rand is certainly making the news. Did I hear correctly that he said he wasn't sure if a business owner should have the right to discriminate based on race?

So, I would have been wrong for using the single issue of slavery as my determination of who I would have voted for in the Abraham Lincoln Presidential race?

 

BTW, I thought this line from my previous post would have explained my position.

 

Killing/Slavery of innocent people should take priority over other issues and should be addressed first.

 

It made it crystal clear. Regardless of how strong a candidate is if he/she is not pro-life they're not getting your vote.

A lot and probably in the most direct way presently in our country through the confirmation of Supreme Court justices.

 

There is a thread on here about the history of the SC actions over the past 30 years that show how one SC justice changes the interpretation of the law in this land.

 

In one case, the SC justices went to bed with a 5-4 vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. One liberal justice was able to convince a moderate justice to change their mind and the 5-4 vote to overturn R v Wade disappeared.

 

So Rand Paul is the deciding vote in getting the right SC justice appointed. The court now leans 5-4 in favor of overturning Roe V Wade. Now what? What do you want the law to be? What do you want the punishment to be for those that break the new law?

Rand is certainly making the news. Did I hear correctly that he said he wasn't sure if a business owner should have the right to discriminate based on race?

 

 

Found this video from last night.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

 

 

Interesting discussion. Fair question to ask because it gets to his overall beliefs about govt's role. While I would question his political savvy I thought he raised fair questions and points . It certainly is a fair topic and discussion as to govt rights to intrude on private businesses.

Found this video from last night.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

 

 

Interesting discussion. Fair question to ask because it gets to his overall beliefs about govt's role. While I would question his political savvy I thought he raised fair questions and points . It certainly is a fair topic and discussion as to govt rights to intrude on private businesses.

 

So, in your opinion should a private business be allowed to refuse to serve any race is chooses not to serve? (That's the question Rand would not really answer.)

So, in your opinion should a private business be allowed to refuse to serve any race is chooses not to serve? (That's the question Rand would not really answer.)

 

Its not that simple as Rand Paul pointed out. The bigger issue is rights of a privately owned business. Can a business owner, as he asked, have their own rule that guns are not allowed in their establishment? Most people, including me, would say that the business owner has that right. Is that discriminatory against gun owners? Maybe. Are we OK with private businesses being able to make that call? Or do we want the govt saying that since gun ownership is allowed by the Constitution and as long as they are following state laws about concealed carry that the business MUST allow guns in ? I think most would side with the business owner being able to make that call and live with the business consequences. If so, how is that different than saying "no gays" or "no blacks?"

Its not that simple as Rand Paul pointed out. The bigger issue is rights of a privately owned business. Can a business owner, as he asked, have their own rule that guns are not allowed in their establishment? Most people, including me, would say that the business owner has that right. Is that discriminatory against gun owners? Maybe. Are we OK with private businesses being able to make that call? Or do we want the govt saying that since gun ownership is allowed by the Constitution and as long as they are following state laws about concealed carry that the business MUST allow guns in ? I think most would side with the business owner being able to make that call and live with the business consequences. If so, how is that different than saying "no gays" or "no blacks?"

 

So your answer to the question I posed is "yes"?