There ain't no rules.

[Kulindahr]

All right, I have a choice for U.S. Representative this November. I can vote for the incumbent Republican former owner of an insurance agency who has been in one office or another since 1981, or I can vote for a Democratic commercial real estate broker with no prior public sector experience.

Are those facts alone enough to decide which to vote for?

Yes.

You never want to vote for a Republican; they want to dictate your morals.

You never want to vote for a Democrat; they want to regulate the frak out of everything.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why do you speak of regulation like it is some abominable evil?

Just let companies use and abuse people and the system as much as they want?

Most "things" are regulated for a damn good reason, because the natural evolution of "things" has the capacity to do harm. No rules, you throw out civilized society.

Because it is.

They decide who can and can't change the covers on light switches, for frak's sake! They establish guilds who get to charge outrageous amounts because there is no competition. They decide what kind of houses you can build, with what materials; in some places they regulate what color they can be painted. They make regulations about land that drive people out of business, drive up costs, and cause highways to be built in dangerous fashion. They come up with rules that make it impossible for poor people to get jobs, because they can't buy the cars that will get them to jobs. They have rules that make it impossible for people to live in houses that other rules make it so they can't sell.

As a handyman, I can hardly turn around without running into a rule that serves no practical function. I can hardly do a job without running into a rule that makes it cost more. The whole system, driven by Democrats, favors the wealthy at every step, because unless you're wealthy you can't even pay the fees to do what needs to be done. There's a house here in town, not far from where I am, that has a porch that's falling apart. If the people don't fix it, they get fined, but they can't afford to fix it, because the regulations require them to use people who get $90+/hr. And since they aren't certified in that guild, they aren't allowed to fix it themselves.

The place here is an excellent example of what happens when liberals get to churn out regulations: livelihoods are ruined, recreation is stifled, land has to sit unused, and there are traps where no matter what you do, you're going to get fined.

I've been to places with no zoning, and no housing codes. The houses are fine, the land is utilized and healthy, people get along. You can hire whomever you want, and don't have to double the price of improving the quality of home or business due to fees. People get to indulge their own whims about what a house should look like, but that adds variety to life instead of the monotony slammed down by intrusive regulations.

Regulations for everything in a state shouldn't be any longer than the five Books of Moses. Anything more is repressive and contrary to liberty.

 

[MystikWizard]

Actually I posted the clip as I found it. Having listened to his blathering stupidity didn't make anything clearer for the effort. He's all over the map with donut holes and castigating republicans for allowing a drug benefit for seniors. Hastings voted against seniors getting this benefit. So, he must want them to die, using democrat logic.

But if you want to give a former Federal Judge who was impeached and removed from office (one of only six in the history of the republic) for bribery some kind of credibility, you go right ahead. Picking them from the phone book is still a better system than what we've got representing us. That's the point that counts.

But thanks for continuing to support Hastings because he belongs to your party. People with integrity have no difficulty recognizing Hastings and his ilk as scum.

Riiiiiiight.

It was such a short clip and it didn't occur to you once that the clip was edited and taken out of context given how quickly it was cut off.

That makes you APPEAR to be either deceptive or just completely stupid if you actually believed that quote was actually Hastings talking about his own party while in public and ON CAMERA . I'm going with the former.

Wasn't a good decision for you to post that, as now you come across as deceptive, which only undermines your own credibility going forward.

 

[construct]

Are you referring to Joe Barton?

Who is the Democrat running, and what is his record?

So your answer to my question is that the information I provided is not enough. Kulindahr apparently thinks I should sit this one out.

All right. It's been twelve hours so time's up!

The Republican is Kay Granger.

The Democrat is Tracey Smith. Since he has never held public office, he has no record of any kind.

 

[JB3]

Riiiiiiight.

It was such a short clip and it didn't occur to you once that the clip was edited and taken out of context given how quickly it was cut off.

That makes you APPEAR to be either deceptive or just completely stupid if you actually believed that quote was actually Hastings talking about his own party while in public and ON CAMERA . I'm going with the former.

Wasn't a good decision for you to post that, as now you come across as deceptive, which only undermines your own credibility going forward.

Why are you always intent on starting a fight?

 

[construct]

People can have records outside of politics too ya know.

I have never heard Tracey Smith speak about any LGBT issue--not in his first try against Granger, not in this race, never. I am assuming that is the record of which you speak.

This year he is in favor of the Trinity River Project.

In 2008, he was for health care reform, and he was for quickly moving toward ending the war in Iraq in order to focus on fighting the Taliban.

(Oh, and about the original topic, yes there are rules. )

 

[construct]

Granger, however, has an abysmal record on gay rights.

The HRC gives her a 0.

She voted against the MSHCA, in 2007 and did not vote in 2009.
She voted against ENDA, when it passed the house in 2007.
She declined to cosponsor a repeal of DADT, the tax equity beneficiaries act, the Uniting American Families Act, or the Early Treatment for HIV Act.

Something tells me her 2010 score is going to be just as bad.

I'm sure it will. Granger is looking toward higher position within the party.

 

[jackoroe]

Riiiiiiight.

It was such a short clip and it didn't occur to you once that the clip was edited and taken out of context given how quickly it was cut off.

That makes you APPEAR to be either deceptive or just completely stupid if you actually believed that quote was actually Hastings talking about his own party while in public and ON CAMERA . I'm going with the former.

Wasn't a good decision for you to post that, as now you come across as deceptive, which only undermines your own credibility going forward.

Oh you're absolutely right, Hastings is a spure as the driven snow and beyond reproach! He'd never do anything so outrageous.

Maybe when you guys finally get that swamp drained and deliver the most ethical Congress ever, I'll consider your opinion as to anyone else's credibility.