Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Weekly News Headline and Debate Topic Forum - 2/18/13

I know last week's open news headline forum didn't get much traction, but hopefully with the Hagel confirmation hearings, Dr. Ben Carson talk, and the sequester, there will be more to talk about.

In an effort to stir the pot, here is the podcast of our Saturday show of the Gang of 405:

Please share your thoughts, opinions, gripes, and everything of the like below. Hopefully we can foster a great discussion!


  1. Here's the full video of Dr. Carson on Hannity (love this guy : )

    And then there's this: OUR tax dollars at work indoctrinating racism in the government workplace... against whites.

    The teacher's unions must be getting nervous because here comes Eric the Black Holder... going after homeschooling:

  2. Gun CONTROL insanity in the news:

    Mexico? Getting involved in OUR business? WTH?

    This administration knows these 'measures' will NOT work - it's NOT about guns - it's about CONTROL:

    No confiscation, huh?

    Washington state - bye bye Fourth Amendment:

    Colorado lib craziness and stupid 'alternatives' for potential rape victims from CO state U
    more nonsense from another co lib

  3. Oops! I forgot to say 'Hi All' : )

  4. Good morning Dara. Wow, I read the article about the Democrat in CO (Salazar). The advice the college gave as possible defenses was rather comical. I especially liked:

    6. Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
    7. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.

    But I found it rather odd that they didn't include one like:

    11. Tell your attacker "Pull my finger".

    The Democrats proposals in Missouri and Washington are scary. We all knew the libs hate the second amendment, but wow the fourth too? Now, there's a Democrat in Illinois that has problems with the First Amendment.

    The story does not mention the party affiliation of the senator. That being said, it told me there was a 99.999999999% chance he was a Democrat. Upon further review, yep, Mr. Silverstein is a Democrat.

    What is up with the Democrats WAR ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

    1. Hi Slim... I never thought about the 'pull my finger' defense.

      I don't think the Democrats JUST want the Bill of Rights - abolished. I firmly believe they're after most of the Constitution... they parts THEY don't like anyway.

      All I have to say to that is: Our Founding Document is VERY clearly written.'Selective enforcement' along with 're-distribution','social justice' and ALL the other socialist (not-so-borderline Communist/Marxist) nonsense the Dems are now promoting are NOT part of our American Constitution.

      If they bothered to READ World History - and/or LOOK at Modern History - they'd SEE that Socialism/Communism are and have ALWAYS been total FAILURES.

  5. Curious what side people here fall on with this:

    I'm sure that most probably disagree with the way they went about it, but does that go likewise for the message and what they were attempting to accomplish (not supporting 'more central' GOP candidates, etc)?

  6. RKen, good evening.

    Why should we "disagree with the way they went about it"? (Photo-shopping the picture I assume) How is that any different than Chris Matthews comparing the GOP to Hamas, or Martin Bashir comparing the NRA to Hitler, or Bashir again comparing Rick Santorum to Joseph Stalin, or "Republicans want you to die", or the dog on the roof, granny over a cliff, etc.? Sure, I think the pic was a little over the top but far from uncommon in today's political climate.

    I find it very odd to see a CNN opinion writer (especially Mr Avlon) some what defending Karl Rove. KARL ROVE?

    Mr. Avlon mentions FIVE conservative TP backed candidates that lost over two election cycles. One of which lost to the Senate Majority Leader. Then uses that a basis for saying that the Republican party needs more moderate candidates.

    Judy Biggert, Robert Dold, Charlie Bass, Linda McMahon and Scott Brown are all moderate to liberal Republicans and all 5 of them lost in the LAST election cycle. Wouldn't that kind of debunk Mr. Avlon's more moderates solution?

    Mr. Avlon (nor CNN or the rest of MSM) doesn't care about the Republican party and they sure don't care about Karl Rove. They hate and fear the Tea Party. That's why they are siding with Rove here, a common goal. That's why they tried to make so much of Rubio's horrible sip of water, they fear him.

    What side do you fall on with this?

  7. Good morning slim,

    By “disagree with the way they went about it”, I mean that there are ‘more eloquent’ (put lightly) ways to get across your message than photo shopping someone’s face over Hitler (or any other similar comparisons). I say this as it applies to everyone, on both sides; whether it’s the Republicans or the Democrats. I agree that this sadly seems to be the normal in this political climate, lately.

    But, I try not to let these things overshadow the ultimate message.

    You bring up a good point, in that quite a few moderates also lost their seats in the more recent elections; I wasn’t aware there were that many.

    However, I think that ultimately I still find myself siding with Karl Rove (even I don’t think I’ve said that before). When I look at those moderate candidates that lost, and ask myself “could they have won if they were further right?”, I don’t think any of them would have stood a better chance. Most of them are from major blue states to begin with, where they’re not likely to gain much (if any) appeal in running on a further right platform. Far more likely that it would hurt their chances.

    On the flip side, when I look at the five candidates Mr. Avlon mentioned, and ask myself “could they have won if they were closer to center?”… It’s a bit tougher to speculate. Ultimately, it’s the more extreme parts of their platform that most agree to have cost them their seats. Though, I do understand that most of those candidates also serve in states where Republican voter enthusiasm and support is a major player.

    It could probably go either way, but even if it would have decreased their chances of winning, I think that ultimately I’d still feel the same way if for nothing other than the fact that Republicans will need to win more blue states/seats to gain full control of Congress (and the presidency). Simply defending the red seats and states will not be enough.