The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: CactusCarlos on January 21, 2011, 02:43:35 PM
-
WASHINGTON — New Hampshire Tea Party movement activist Andrew Hemingway is not lacking in contact with likely presidential candidates. He’s talked hockey with Tim Pawlenty. He sat down with former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum at the Concord Country Club. And plans are in the works for Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to appear before a group of Hemingway’s fellow conservatives.
A notable exception among the field of would-be GOP presidential contenders? Mitt Romney.
More: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/01/21/mitt_romney_keeps_away_from_tea_party/
-
No surprise, the TEA Partiers are pretty underenthused about Romney.
-
Drinking the Tea will be a hinderance in the general election. You will not be able to embrace them and win.
-
Drinking the Tea will be a hinderance in the general election. You will not be able to embrace them and win.
As evidenced, of course, by the scores of TEA party candidates who flamed out last November?
Oh yeah... :loser: :thatsright:
-
Governer Good Hair isn't really Tea Party material anyway.
-
Drinking the Tea will be a hinderance in the general election. You will not be able to embrace them and win.
Looks and sounds like you have drinking too much koolaid.
Romney will court the NAACP, the Log Cabin Queers and the Eastern Establishment Blue Blood Rockefeller RINOs.. If he gets the nomination, I doubt that he can win cause millions of conservatives like me will not vote for that fraud.
-
Drinking the Tea will be a hinderance in the general election. You will not be able to embrace them and win.
Yeah, because President McCain did so well by being a moderate and ignoring the conservative base...
Oh, wait....
:whatever:
-
Drinking the Tea will be a hinderance in the general election. You will not be able to embrace them and win.
:bs2flag:
A lot of Tea Party candidates won last November.
-
Hopefully, the Tea Party will stay keep from him..........
-
Hopefully, the Tea Party will stay keep from him..........
The folks in the TEA party seem - thus far - to be able to understand bullshit pretty fluently when they hear it. It's as if every damned one of 'em were from Missouri or somethin'...
-
I'm sorry, but Bok is correct. While the Tea Party is popular among the majority of conservatives, it's very unpopular with other voting blocs, namely the coveted independents and certainly the left leaning moderates. The biggest glaring examples of this were with Christine O'Donnell and Joe Miller. Both were propelled into candidacy by the Tea Party, but they were soundly rejected by the rest of the voting public. The 2008 election showed us just how badly we need moderate voters.
-
I'm sorry, but Bok is correct. While the Tea Party is popular among the majority of conservatives, it's very unpopular with other voting blocs, namely the coveted independents and certainly the left leaning moderates. The biggest glaring examples of this were with Christine O'Donnell and Joe Miller. Both were propelled into candidacy by the Tea Party, but they were soundly rejected by the rest of the voting public. The 2008 election showed us just how badly we need moderate voters.
Please define "moderate" voters as you view the term.
-
The 2008 election showed us just how badly we need moderate voters.
No. I think its the other way around. The 2008 election showed us just how badly the moderates need conservatives.
Anyone remember the word "shellacking"? Anyone? ... Bueller?
-
I'm sorry, but Bok is correct. While the Tea Party is popular among the majority of conservatives, it's very unpopular with other voting blocs, namely the coveted independents and certainly the left leaning moderates. The biggest glaring examples of this were with Christine O'Donnell and Joe Miller. Both were propelled into candidacy by the Tea Party, but they were soundly rejected by the rest of the voting public. The 2008 election showed us just how badly we need moderate voters.
You pick out 2 incumbents Senators that won and and an awful RINO (McCain) for President. Pat yourself on the back. I guess you forgot 60% of independents voted for Repubs in the 2010 election; many Tea Party candidates won. FYI, we have too many left leaning moderates in the Repub party which need to be defeated. Palin is going to get the nomination and destroy Obummer in the debates.
-
Please define "moderate" voters as you view the term.
Some conservatives are extremely far right with their views on fiscal responsibility (Palin). Other conservatives are extremely far right with their views on social issues (Bush Jr.) Then you have conservatives who are a mix of the two (me). I'm not a fan of the extreme ends of either type of conservative.
I consider myself to be a moderate Republican. I am a Christian and believe that God shouldn't be removed from schools, but I also believe that the bible shouldn't guide official White House policy. I believe in fiscal philosophies such as a flat tax (progressive taxation drives me nuts because of how unfair it is) and that government should cut spending, but I also believe that sometimes taxes have to be raised in order to sustain programs that are important to us.
-
You pick out 2 incumbents Senators that won and and an awful RINO (McCain) for President. Pat yourself on the back. I guess you forgot 60% of independents voted for Repubs in the 2010 election; many Tea Party candidates won. FYI, we have too many left leaning moderates in the Repub party which need to be defeated. Palin is going to get the nomination and destroy Obummer in the debates.
Palin isn't going to ever poll well outside of the Tea Party. She won't ever poll well with me personally because she simply doesn't have the experience to sit in the White House. I think this country learned a valuable lesson with the Great Community Organizer and how badly he's dropped the football.
-
Palin isn't going to ever poll well outside of the Tea Party. She won't ever poll well with me personally because she simply doesn't have the experience to sit in the White House. I think this country learned a valuable lesson with the Great Community Organizer and how badly he's dropped the football.
What experience are you looking for?
-
No. I think its the other way around. The 2008 election showed us just how badly the moderates need conservatives.
Anyone remember the word "shellacking"? Anyone? ... Bueller?
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/01/06/t1larg.gallup.demid.jpg)
Democrats and Republicans need independents if they have any chance whatsoever of winning.
-
What experience are you looking for?
You know, I don't really know. Obama proved that just being a Senator (albeit for a short period of time) doesn't fit my standard, but neither does being Governor of a sparsely populated state (Alaska). But on the same side of that coin I like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. I dunno what I'm looking for, to be perfectly honest. I'm very much on the fence with the pool of Republican candidates right now. I'm not saying I won't vote along with the Tea Party, but I am saying I won't vote for Palin. I am, however, completely in love with Bristol. :cheersmate:
-
I love that chart, thanks! Being in a strong red state, I get into a comfort zone believing that the majority of the country is right leaning. That chart confirms it a little at least.
-
You know, I don't really know. Obama proved that just being a Senator (albeit for a short period of time) doesn't fit my standard, but neither does being Governor of a sparsely populated state (Alaska). But on the same side of that coin I like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. I dunno what I'm looking for, to be perfectly honest. I'm very much on the fence with the pool of Republican candidates right now. I'm not saying I won't vote along with the Tea Party, but I am saying I won't vote for Palin. I am, however, completely in love with Bristol. :cheersmate:
Governor Palin was the only sitting governor who was CIC of an active duty national guard base. She also received very high level security briefings daily, as much to the contrary of the Tina Feys of the world, could indeed see Russia from her house.
She was the CEO of a state whose location is a high national security risk -- she gets it. Moreso than most of the current pool of candidates.
I won't support Palin because she has been polarized by the media. She is far more useful for the party in her present role of supporting strong candidates.
-
You are 100% dead on. She has been polarized by the media and I believe it makes her unelectable. I'm afraid that if we nominate her as Obama's opposition next year, we're going to be stuck with him for another term.
Huckabee is the leader of the pack right now, but remember that shooting in Seattle where 4 officers were killed? Remember how the suspect was released from prison early on Huckabee's signature? The media's being very quiet, but that's his achilles heel. He'll still do well with the evangelicals, but I don't see independents moving his way either. I'm not a big fan of Romney, but he's the strongest I see so far. Unless Christie runs, then who knows what'll happen.
-
You are 100% dead on. She has been polarized by the media and I believe it makes her unelectable. I'm afraid that if we nominate her as Obama's opposition next year, we're going to be stuck with him for another term.
Huckabee is the leader of the pack right now, but remember that shooting in Seattle where 4 officers were killed? Remember how the suspect was released from prison early on Huckabee's signature? The media's being very quiet, but that's his achilles heel. He'll still do well with the evangelicals, but I don't see independents moving his way either. I'm not a big fan of Romney, but he's the strongest I see so far. Unless Christie runs, then who knows what'll happen.
I would never support Huckabee. Christy said he isn't ready to run. No idea how strong Romney will be as we don't know who all the candidates are.
I am interested in Cain and want to hear more from him.
-
2012 is ours to lose. I think as long as we don't prop up a candidate who practiced witch craft and railed against self-pleasure, we stand a chance. :D
-
The problem with "independent" voters (not those who have strong views one way or the other, but those who don't have any either way) is that they're fickle and deliberately choose not to educate themselves on political matters. A Democrat gets into the White House, they are happy for a bit then get tired of him, then vote for a Republican, and the cycle repeats itself. Because they don't have strong views either to the Right or the Left, they don't vote consistently for either Right or Left, but for whatever isn't in the White House, depending on if it takes them four or eight years to get fed up enough with someone (and the ideology, conservative or liberal, that guy represents).
During the year, they don't pay enough attention to politics, I suspect. A little bit of the local news once in a while, or a few articles in the paper - that's it. As both serious Right- and Left-wing voters know, it takes more than dipping your toes in the water to be swimming, and it takes more than the occasional cursory glance at news sources to be informed. So, to "reach out" to independent voters, what needs to be done?
Either abandon your principles and appeal to them on a contrary basis vis-a-vis the guy who's in the White House, or stand firm on your principles and trust that an honest display of them will touch the hearts and minds of independents, who also want what's best for their country, even though they don't see the need to stay informed as a daily practice.
So, the Tea Party is hardly an instant death-blow to a candidate in the faces of independents. All the independents need to do is see what the Tea Party and any associated candidate has to offer and where they stand. If they aren't Left-leaning independents, they'll not be put off and probably attracted. Since most independents, despite their general lack of political interests, lean essentially either conservative or liberal, that is what determines much of how they vote, I think.
Besides, what's so "extreme" and "off-putting" about the Tea Party, anyway? They only want constitutional rights and limited, responsible government. Oh yeah, sooo hardcore and sooo extreme ::) Only people who insist on letting the mainstream media influence their views could think that, not those who look at the Tea Partiers themselves and see just where they stand and what they think.
-
Gaze into your crystal balls all you want, its too soon to place all your chips on any marker yet.
-
I read an article several years back that said "White males determine an election." They're 20% of the voting public and as the national elections go whichever way they lean.....SO, which way are the white males leaning right now?....or in the future?
-
The problem with "independent" voters (not those who have strong views one way or the other, but those who don't have any either way) is that they're fickle and deliberately choose not to educate themselves on political matters.
Bingo. I believe it was Hannity who nailed it when he called them, "Intellectually Lazy". It may have been Levin. Been a while since I heard it, but it's a perfect description.
-
Drinking the Tea will be a hinderance in the general election. You will not be able to embrace them and win.
Say what you will about the TP and Palin, but 3/4 of the candidates backed by one or both won last November. You wish to focus on Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell? Fine. That's like focusing on a dripping sink on the Titanic right after it hit the iceberg.
-
I'm sorry, but Bok is correct. While the Tea Party is popular among the majority of conservatives, it's very unpopular with other voting blocs, namely the coveted independents and certainly the left leaning moderates. The biggest glaring examples of this were with Christine O'Donnell and Joe Miller. Both were propelled into candidacy by the Tea Party, but they were soundly rejected by the rest of the voting public. The 2008 election showed us just how badly we need moderate voters.
Disagree. Reagan was vilified in the press as an "extremist", "too conservative", etc., yet he won the presidency in 1980 by 10 points (and that's with John Anderson, a former Republican, in the race drawing votes that almost certainly would have broken solidly to Reagan) and in 1984 by 18 points, nearly completing an EC sweep (and would have had he not lost Minnesota by a bare 3500 votes.)
The only thing the "mushy middle" is good for is gauging the effectiveness of the MSM/DNC propaganda machine.
-
Some conservatives are extremely far right with their views on fiscal responsibility (Palin). Other conservatives are extremely far right with their views on social issues (Bush Jr.) Then you have conservatives who are a mix of the two (me). I'm not a fan of the extreme ends of either type of conservative.
I consider myself to be a moderate Republican. I am a Christian and believe that God shouldn't be removed from schools, but I also believe that the bible shouldn't guide official White House policy. I believe in fiscal philosophies such as a flat tax (progressive taxation drives me nuts because of how unfair it is) and that government should cut spending, but I also believe that sometimes taxes have to be raised in order to sustain programs that are important to us.
How about cutting spending FIRST and keep taxes where they are? The highest corporate tax rate in the world not enough for ya?
-
Cutting spending should be a given. I think it's obvious that we can't sustain our budget at current rates. I believe that we're going to have to dig deep into social programs. Trust me, I see in my line of work that welfare is more of a profession than it is actual assistance. People live off the public dole and will adjust their lifestyles to ensure that the free money flows indefinitely. They think it's free money when it's not....it's yours and mine.
-
I don't think we can overcome our deficit with tax rates staying the way they are. However, I'm not saying continue to squeeze the 50% of us who actually do pay taxes. How about we eliminate all the tax breaks and exemptions that the non-paying 50% have and go to a simple flat tax where we all pay the same? Adjust that flat rate to a range where we could pay off this deficit in 10 years.
-
Some conservatives are extremely far right with their views on fiscal responsibility (Palin). Other conservatives are extremely far right with their views on social issues (Bush Jr.) Then you have conservatives who are a mix of the two (me). I'm not a fan of the extreme ends of either type of conservative.
I consider myself to be a moderate Republican. I am a Christian and believe that God shouldn't be removed from schools, but I also believe that the bible shouldn't guide official White House policy. I believe in fiscal philosophies such as a flat tax (progressive taxation drives me nuts because of how unfair it is) and that government should cut spending, but I also believe that sometimes taxes have to be raised in order to sustain programs that are important to us.
Sounds like to me that you are a liberal Republician. Taxes do not need to be raised. Kennedy and Reagan proved that. What we need is more taxpayers and fewer dead beats on the welfare rolls.
Specify the far right views of fiscal responsibility that Palin supports. Let's hear it. I think you are blowing smoke. The same can be said for Bush on social issues. I guess you like queers in the military and are in favor of gay marriage. Let's hear specifics rather than generalities of Palin and Bush extremely right wing views. Are you a troll cause I hear a lot of bullshit coming from you?.
-
Sounds like to me that you are a liberal Republician. Taxes do not need to be raised. Kennedy and Reagan proved that. What we need is more taxpayers and fewer dead beats on the welfare rolls.
Specify the far right views of fiscal responsibility that Palin supports. Let's hear it. I think you are blowing smoke. The same can be said for Bush on social issues. I guess you like queers in the military and are in favor of gay marriage. Let's hear specifics rather than generalities of Palin and Bush extremely right wing views. Are you a troll cause I hear a lot of bullshit coming from you?.
Well, you'll just have to read about it in other threads and posts because I don't entertain the desires for conflict from internet tough guys.
-
Well, you'll just have to read about it in other threads and posts because I don't entertain the desires for conflict from internet tough guys.
I get it; a wimpy troll that is afraid to discuss facts rather than opinions. I don't think you are a cop either.
-
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you.
I'm not playing your game. Have a nice day.
-
I get it; a wimpy troll that is afraid to discuss facts rather than opinions. I don't think you are a cop either.
Not cool. Can't we give the guy the benefit of the doubt?
-
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you.
I'm not playing your game. Have a nice day.
I have been on internet boards for around 8 years and this is a first being called an internet tough guy and coming from a newbie fraud. WOW.
-
ENOUGH!!! Until you have facts proving otherwise, new members WILL NOT be treated this way!!! Knock. it. off.
Texascop can handle himself and if the two of you want to duke it out about politics, have at it. But we will NOT discount someone simply for being a Newbie.
This crap ends here.
-
Not cool. Can't we give the guy the benefit of the doubt?
I don't mind. I understand the paranoia of liberal infiltrators. I think it's smart to be that way. But if someone has a question for me, I'll be happy to clarify my beliefs to them.....so long as they don't come across as a tool when they do so.
-
Carry on with the debate guys. Just stick to the facts and follow the forum rules. TC when your post count is 100, you will be able to see The Fight Club Forum. That's the no-holds barred section people can invite each other to when it's clear you need to vent your spleen somewhere besides the regular boards.
-
LOL, okay.
-
Lacarnut,
When I talk about taxation, I'm saying that we are so far in a fiscal hole, I don't see how we can get out without raising taxes. I don't want to pay more taxes (especially with the rate of inflation and the fact that I'm not getting pay raises), you don't want to pay more taxes, but are cuts in spending going to be enough? I just don't see how it could happen, but I'm not a CPA.
Yes, we do need more taxpayers and less dead beats on the welfare rolls. I firmly believe in giving people a hand-up instead of a hand-out. We need an end game for public assistance. People living their lives on welfare rolls is unacceptible. Instead of funding their $3,000 rims on their Escalades, why don't we help fund job training for them? If they drop out or fail beyond that point, sorry, but you're on your own.
Palin wants the government to consume itself. I understand that to a degree, but you have to understand that services will suffer. I have a vision of interstates with pot holes, even longer lines at the Social Security office, impossible waits at the VA hospitals, etc. I would rather raise taxes to keep important government programs than cut them and use those cuts to erase our deficit.
As for gays in the military, I'm sorry to tell you, but they've always been there. I served and I knew who they were. You know what? They didn't bother me. They mostly only seem to bother people who never served. May I ask what branch you served in?
-
I'm headed to the gym, but I'll be happy to answer any further questions you have when I get back. I'm not the enemy, man.
-
(http://i54.tinypic.com/wkg208.png)
Lacarnut,
When I talk about taxation, I'm saying that we are so far in a fiscal hole, I don't see how we can get out without raising taxes. I don't want to pay more taxes (especially with the rate of inflation and the fact that I'm not getting pay raises), you don't want to pay more taxes, but are cuts in spending going to be enough? I just don't see how it could happen, but I'm not a CPA.
Im no expert either. But we are only trillions away from constitutionally allowed govt services. So cutting spending is probably enough itself if you include the elimination of duplicitous services and agencies of which there are untold amounts.
The reason raising taxes is last and least desirable is that anytime you punish activity, no matter what it is ... you get less of it. So when you raise taxes you get less revenue into the treasury. You think the rich and the job creators are going to sit idly by and watch their profit margins go down the bottomless govt pit when they can simply relocate to a friendlier work environment? Back in the Reagan days we worried Japan would buy all of America up. Why? Because our corp tax rates were so low. Any business, anywhere in the world is going to go where the work environs are less hostile to them and more conducive to high productivity. The Japanese left and took their money with them when the rates were jacked up again sky high as they are today. And the same applies down the line to the ordinary consumer. Its not rocket science. It used to be economics 101 before the left turned education into indoctrination and the news media gave up all pretensions of being unbiased.
And yes a flat tax or a fair tax would help our economy and our culture immensely and save a ton of money too. But as long as we have voters who use the TV as their prime source of news, we will have liberal democrat and liberal republicrat voters. And as long as we have democrats (and the sycophant news media) with anything approaching equal footing at the levers of power in govt there will be NO TAX REFORM of this nature. You can bank on that. Because if it ever came to fruition, it would take power out of Washington and return it to the people. And we know that just aint goin to wash. No how, no way, Hosea.
Instead we'll just keep banging the drums about class warfare and raising taxes every chance a liberal newscaster, a liberal politician or a liberal "educator" gets half a chance. Its worked like a charm for them so far. If you tell a lie long enough ... well, you know the rest.
-
What libs are crying for is that class warfare taxation....."wah, raise taxes on the top 2% earners!" I'm with you, why punish success? If you aren't a top 2% earner, it's your fault and due to your own life decisions. I'll never be one and I accept that.
What I have more in mind are taxes that would target (oops, can I use that word? Blame Palin, not me!) American businesses that outsource jobs to other countries. For example, GM just invested over $500 million in MEXICO to develop low emission motors. I'll stop just shy of calling it punitive taxation, but as long as huge employers such as GM create jobs beyond our borders while laying off Americans, we're going to continue chasing our tails.
-
Lacarnut,
When I talk about taxation, I'm saying that we are so far in a fiscal hole, I don't see how we can get out without raising taxes. I don't want to pay more taxes (especially with the rate of inflation and the fact that I'm not getting pay raises), you don't want to pay more taxes, but are cuts in spending going to be enough? I just don't see how it could happen, but I'm not a CPA.
Yes, we do need more taxpayers and less dead beats on the welfare rolls. I firmly believe in giving people a hand-up instead of a hand-out. We need an end game for public assistance. People living their lives on welfare rolls is unacceptible. Instead of funding their $3,000 rims on their Escalades, why don't we help fund job training for them? If they drop out or fail beyond that point, sorry, but you're on your own.
Palin wants the government to consume itself. I understand that to a degree, but you have to understand that services will suffer. I have a vision of interstates with pot holes, even longer lines at the Social Security office, impossible waits at the VA hospitals, etc. I would rather raise taxes to keep important government programs than cut them and use those cuts to erase our deficit.
Raising taxes will drive out the very producers that the state depends upon for revenue. I do agree that the current progressive tax system should be replaced with a flat tax though.
-
Attero, we're already losing those companies.
I'm not gonna pretend to have the right answers. I vote for the folks who are smart enough to figure it out.
:stoner:
I just wanted to use a bong smilie.
-
Lacarnut,
When I talk about taxation, I'm saying that we are so far in a fiscal hole, I don't see how we can get out without raising taxes. I don't want to pay more taxes (especially with the rate of inflation and the fact that I'm not getting pay raises), you don't want to pay more taxes, but are cuts in spending going to be enough? I just don't see how it could happen, but I'm not a CPA.
How about at least attempting some serious spending reductions before we talk about tax increases? It has been my experience that the politicians rarely use tax increases for their stated purposes. Some how the $$$ always seems to get redirected into some BS social program or other. Do you have any evidence, other than your opinion, that spending cuts alone won't correct the problem?
Yes, we do need more taxpayers and less dead beats on the welfare rolls. I firmly believe in giving people a hand-up instead of a hand-out. We need an end game for public assistance. People living their lives on welfare rolls is unacceptible. Instead of funding their $3,000 rims on their Escalades, why don't we help fund job training for them? If they drop out or fail beyond that point, sorry, but you're on your own.
5 year life time cap on welfare. No extra $ for having more kids while on welfare. Job training IS available for those that qualify in my neck of the woods. The problem is that far too many folks on welfare don't WANT to work. Hell, just take a look at all of those content to sit on their asses and draw unemployment for 3 freakin years, rather than work a lower paying job than they are used to.
Palin wants the government to consume itself.
Your proof of this is?
I understand that to a degree, but you have to understand that services will suffer.
Sevices such as?
I have a vision of interstates with pot holes,
We already have that. Highway repair funds are often reallocated by the states.
longer lines at the Social Security office,
IMO Social Security should be phased out of existance over the next 20 years.
I would rather raise taxes to keep important government programs than cut them and use those cuts to erase our deficit.
What programs other than the two you just mentioned do you feel are "important"? Importance is often subjective based on the opinion of the one making the claim. What you think is important, I may not.
As for gays in the military, I'm sorry to tell you, but they've always been there. I served and I knew who they were. You know what? They didn't bother me. They mostly only seem to bother people who never served. May I ask what branch you served in?
Yes, they have always been there and in many cases have served honorably. How much do you think it is going to cost us tax payers when Sgt. Bob wants to add his lover Joe to his US tax $ funded medical care? BTW, I served in the Army and I didn't want some peter puffer eyeing my junk. I still don't.
What branch did you serve in?
-
Lots of questions. Pardon me if I forget one.
1. It's my opinion. Like I said, I'm not a CPA. I am, however, a realist.
2. You and I are arguing the same point on welfare. I could agree to a 5 year lifetime cap. I know job training exists. I'm saying we need that. If that doesn't work or they fail in it, sorry.
3. I think we're having confusion on definition. When I say Palin wants the government to consume itself, I'm meaning she wants the government to overcome our huge deficit mostly through the downsizing of government. That sounds good on the campaign trail, but what cuts would be made? I don't want basic and crucial government functions to go away. I will admit my ignorance on Palin's full platform, so I'm open to enlightenment.
4. I served in the United States Army from 1987 to 1994.
-
Lots of questions. Pardon me if I forget one.
1. It's my opinion. Like I said, I'm not a CPA. I am, however, a realist.
I too am a realist. But I at least try to form my opinions based on fact, not mere speculation. You don't have to be a CPA to do basic math. If you are spending more than you are receiving... reduce your spending. It seems to work for millions of households and many companies that manage to survive without government subsidies.
2. You and I are arguing the same point on welfare. I could agree to a 5 year lifetime cap. I know job training exists. I'm saying we need that. If that doesn't work or they fail in it, sorry.
So we have at least one thing to agree on.
3. I think we're having confusion on definition. When I say Palin wants the government to consume itself, I'm meaning she wants the government to overcome our huge deficit mostly through the downsizing of government. That sounds good on the campaign trail, but what cuts would be made? I don't want basic and crucial government functions to go away. I will admit my ignorance on Palin's full platform, so I'm open to enlightenment.
I for one agree with Palin. We need to drastically downsize the government at all levels. I find it ironic that you seem to dislike Palin, or at least don't think her concepts will work, yet admit you are ignorant of her platform.
I'll ask again... what "basic and crucial government functions" are you referring to? They shouldn't be that hard to list if you have put much critical thought into it.
-
It's overly simplistic to say, "It's easy, quit spending more than you are making." That would work if we were trying to balance a checkbook. We're not. We have to make up a $14 TRILLION deficit. I can't wrap my mind around how cutting spending here and there will cover such a huge gap. Logic tells me that we have to go further than that or we're leaving this debt for the next generation.
I gave examples early on of crucial government programs.....highways, social security, etc. Here in Texas we get something like $2 billion per year from the federal highway funds. I shudder to imagine how quickly our interstates will erode from the increased truck traffic (thanks NAFTA) without those funds. My parents and my lone surviving grandmother depend on social security. It really hurts them when they don't get the COLA bumps. I can't imagine what would happen if it went away completely. How about federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, DEA and, to some extend, the CIA? What about crucial agencies such as the FAA? Will the oversight of airlines drop? I want to know what cuts Palin has in mind.
-
It's overly simplistic to say, "It's easy, quit spending more than you are making." That would work if we were trying to balance a checkbook. We're not. We have to make up a $14 TRILLION deficit. I can't wrap my mind around how cutting spending here and there will cover such a huge gap. Logic tells me that we have to go further than that or we're leaving this debt for the next generation.
I gave examples early on of crucial government programs.....highways, social security, etc. Here in Texas we get something like $2 billion per year from the federal highway funds. I shudder to imagine how quickly our interstates will erode from the increased truck traffic (thanks NAFTA) without those funds. My parents and my lone surviving grandmother depend on social security. It really hurts them when they don't get the COLA bumps. I can't imagine what would happen if it went away completely. How about federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, DEA and, to some extend, the CIA? What about crucial agencies such as the FAA? Will the oversight of airlines drop? I want to know what cuts Palin has in mind.
But it IS indeed just that easy. What makes you think there is something overly complicated about the concept of not spending more than you receive?
Highways and Social Security is all you got when it comes to "basic and crucial government functions"?
Social Security is an unconstitutional Ponzi scheme that the feds managed to foist upon the gullible back in the 1930s.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that Texas would be able to maintain it's own roads if Texans weren't forced at federal gun point to work as virtual slaves to the Fed for the 1st 4 months of each year and instead kept that money local?
I have a challange for you. Before raising taxes, what government spending would your recommend cutting if it were your decision?
You seem convinced that mere spending cuts won't balance the budget. Prove or disprove the idea using actual facts instead of what you "feel". The CBO puts out many reports to help you find acutal government expenses. But I warn you, it is very dry reading.
One does not have to be a CPA to do basic math.
-
First off, you can drop the condescending tone. It doesn't intimidate me and you're wasting your time if you're trying to make me look less intelligent than you because your opinion of me doesn't affect me. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just being blunt. Secondly, I consider highway funds to be critical infrastructure. If you disagree, then fine. Social security, fine, that's debatable and I can concede that.
Yes, I know it's easy to say that not spending more than you make is wise fiscal policy. However, how long will that take to knock out $14 trillion?
-
And it's quite possible that you're smarter and more informed than I am. It's also possible that your johnson is bigger and you drive a nicer car. You're probably nicer than me and your cologne smells better.
I'm here to exchange ideas, not stroke egos.
-
First off, you can drop the condescending tone. It doesn't intimidate me and you're wasting your time if you're trying to make me look less intelligent than you because your opinion of me doesn't affect me. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just being blunt. Secondly, I consider highway funds to be critical infrastructure. If you disagree, then fine. Social security, fine, that's debatable and I can concede that.
Yes, I know it's easy to say that not spending more than you make is wise fiscal policy. However, how long will that take to knock out $14 trillion?
Allow me to be just as blunt. I am not trying to intimidate you. Nor am I trying to be condescending. I am merely asking you a few questions. If you don't want to or can't support your opinion with facts, that's on you.
I also don't give a shit about making you look less intelligent. Either you will answer questions or you won't. There ain't jack shit I can do about it either way. I don't have an opinion of you. I don't KNOW you. I only have an opinion of what you have posted here and I know that doesn't make me any sort of expert on you.
Most of my BS count is due to me not walking lockstep with a handfull of "broken glass republicans" and agreeing with everything they have said here. I am not here to impress anyone or make friends. I disagree with some of what is posted here and have been rather vocal about it. I am not trying to be your enemy, nor your friend. I am merely asking questions and trying to learn more about your opinion and why you have the opinions that you do.
I have asked questions to try to understand why you have the POV that you have posted. No more, no less.
I haven't called you a noob nor disregarded your input based on your post count. I have not challanged your claim of being a cop or former military member.
You keep bringing up highways.... and I keep asking what else you consider basic and crucial government functions. You have yet to respond.
I agree that highways are important, but they hardly encompass all government spending or even a significant portion thereof.
Now as to your question of: how long will that take to knock out $14 trillion?
It will never be reduced without a significant cut in spending across the board, and history has proven time and time and time again that tax increases ain't gonna get it done.
What makes you think that it will be any different this time?
-
And it's quite possible that you're smarter and more informed than I am. It's also possible that your johnson is bigger and you drive a nicer car. You're probably nicer than me and your cologne smells better.
I'm here to exchange ideas, not stroke egos.
Seriously.... Exchange ideas then. Don't get so butt hurt when your opinion is questioned.
-
Attero, we're already losing those companies.
I'm not gonna pretend to have the right answers. I vote for the folks who are smart enough to figure it out.
:stoner:
I just wanted to use a bong smilie.
If you believe that the people that you vote for are smarter than you are, well, that's part of your problem right there. Don't assume just because someone gets elected they all of a sudden become supergeniuses. For evidence, I refer you to Sheila Jackson-Lee.
-
ENOUGH!!! Until you have facts proving otherwise, new members WILL NOT be treated this way!!! Knock. it. off.
Texascop can handle himself and if the two of you want to duke it out about politics, have at it. But we will NOT discount someone simply for being a Newbie.
This crap ends here.
He stated that Palin and Bush were FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST. I would like him to provide "FACTS." He is making accusations that he can not or will not back up.
I was under the impression the topic was about Romney. Guess not cause newbie does not address Romney's extreme views. He only takes pot shots at Palin.
-
Drinking the Tea will be a hinderance in the general election. You will not be able to embrace them and win.
FAIL.
-
I'm sorry, but Bok is correct.
No, not in this instance. He gave us Romney Care here in MA.
DO.NOT.WANT.
-
No, not in this instance. He gave us Romney Care here in MA.
DO.NOT.WANT.
I for one will not vote for Romney. If the mushy, middle of the road Repubs nominate him, many conservatives will stay home. We tried McCain and that did not work out too well. Romney is an extremist since he signed Romney Healthcare and he was for abortion but now he is against it. He is a flip flopper and is too cozy with homosexual activists.
-
Rich,
First we need to reduce spending to get rid of the deficit, which will in turn start to reduce the debt.
Second Texascop was right about getting rid of the payroll tax and go to some sort of flat tax which is basically a National sales tax. That in itself would bring more revenue in to the Federal goverment as all those, what was about 35% don't pay any taxes, would have to start paying taxes for services and products purchased. That would alllow the IRS personnel to be reduced by 99% if not all. There is one big reduction in goverment salaries, pensions and so forth. This would also get rid of the various tax credits given to those.
As of right now I too am one that hopes Govenor Palin doesn't run for office. She has become to polarizing a figure and since the majority of people do no research on the canidates, we would have another four years of President Obama. That is something I really do not wish to see on that fateful election night in 2012.
As for Romney..........I don't like him and never have, however it is so early still that I'm gonna keep the big britches on and not worry about it. Right now the only one I like is Cain.
-
Now if he would just stay away from politics.
-
The problem with "independent" voters (not those who have strong views one way or the other, but those who don't have any either way) is that they're fickle and deliberately choose not to educate themselves on political matters. A Democrat gets into the White House, they are happy for a bit then get tired of him, then vote for a Republican, and the cycle repeats itself. Because they don't have strong views either to the Right or the Left, they don't vote consistently for either Right or Left, but for whatever isn't in the White House, depending on if it takes them four or eight years to get fed up enough with someone (and the ideology, conservative or liberal, that guy represents).
During the year, they don't pay enough attention to politics, I suspect. A little bit of the local news once in a while, or a few articles in the paper - that's it. As both serious Right- and Left-wing voters know, it takes more than dipping your toes in the water to be swimming, and it takes more than the occasional cursory glance at news sources to be informed. So, to "reach out" to independent voters, what needs to be done?
Either abandon your principles and appeal to them on a contrary basis vis-a-vis the guy who's in the White House, or stand firm on your principles and trust that an honest display of them will touch the hearts and minds of independents, who also want what's best for their country, even though they don't see the need to stay informed as a daily practice.
So, the Tea Party is hardly an instant death-blow to a candidate in the faces of independents. All the independents need to do is see what the Tea Party and any associated candidate has to offer and where they stand. If they aren't Left-leaning independents, they'll not be put off and probably attracted. Since most independents, despite their general lack of political interests, lean essentially either conservative or liberal, that is what determines much of how they vote, I think.
Besides, what's so "extreme" and "off-putting" about the Tea Party, anyway? They only want constitutional rights and limited, responsible government. Oh yeah, sooo hardcore and sooo extreme ::) Only people who insist on letting the mainstream media influence their views could think that, not those who look at the Tea Partiers themselves and see just where they stand and what they think.
:clap:
H-5
-
Now if he would just stay away from politics.
:yeahthat:
-
I for one will not vote for Romney. If the mushy, middle of the road Repubs nominate him, many conservatives will stay home. We tried McCain and that did not work out too well. Romney is an extremist since he signed Romney Healthcare and he was for abortion but now he is against it. He is a flip flopper and is too cozy with homosexual activists.
I will not vote for the Republican version of John Kerry either.
-
Rich,
First we need to reduce spending to get rid of the deficit, which will in turn start to reduce the debt.
Second Texascop was right about getting rid of the payroll tax and go to some sort of flat tax which is basically a National sales tax. That in itself would bring more revenue in to the Federal goverment as all those, what was about 35% don't pay any taxes, would have to start paying taxes for services and products purchased. That would alllow the IRS personnel to be reduced by 99% if not all. There is one big reduction in goverment salaries, pensions and so forth. This would also get rid of the various tax credits given to those.
As of right now I too am one that hopes Govenor Palin doesn't run for office. She has become to polarizing a figure and since the majority of people do no research on the canidates, we would have another four years of President Obama. That is something I really do not wish to see on that fateful election night in 2012.
As for Romney..........I don't like him and never have, however it is so early still that I'm gonna keep the big britches on and not worry about it. Right now the only one I like is Cain.
I doubt that those in favor of a flat tax have considered the fact that the real estate market would be devastated. Interest deductions would be eliminated. Private and commercial construction does not need a monkey wrench thrown at them while the economy is in the dumps. Charitable, education and other exemptions would also be eliminated under a fair tax plan. Good luck trying to sell that tax plan to the electorate. Changing the Commerce Clause would also be a hurdle with all the legal wrangling. .
Texascop has it ass backwards. We do not need more revenues. We need a hatchet taken to spending. It is idiotic to talk about raising taxes at a time when the economy is suffering. Spending cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars is the answer year after year. There is no quick fix and although the present tax system is terrible, the politicians could screw it up worse than it already is with a flat, fair or VAT tax.
-
Rich,
First we need to reduce spending to get rid of the deficit, which will in turn start to reduce the debt.
Exactly. I'm not saying that taxes may not have to be increased, but I want to try spending cuts first. And I mean deep, piss off everyone spending cuts.
-
I for one will not vote for Romney. If the mushy, middle of the road Repubs nominate him, many conservatives will stay home. We tried McCain and that did not work out too well. Romney is an extremist since he signed Romney Healthcare and he was for abortion but now he is against it. He is a flip flopper and is too cozy with homosexual activists.
Ditto.
-
I doubt that those in favor of a flat tax have considered the fact that the real estate market would be devastated. Interest deductions would be eliminated. Private and commercial construction does not need a monkey wrench thrown at them while the economy is in the dumps. Charitable, education and other exemptions would also be eliminated under a fair tax plan. Good luck trying to sell that tax plan to the electorate. Changing the Commerce Clause would also be a hurdle with all the legal wrangling. .
Texascop has it ass backwards. We do not need more revenues. We need a hatchet taken to spending. It is idiotic to talk about raising taxes at a time when the economy is suffering. Spending cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars is the answer year after year. There is no quick fix and although the present tax system is terrible, the politicians could screw it up worse than it already is with a flat, fair or VAT tax.
I am not convinced that most folks buy a home for the purpose of getting the interest deduction.
-
Kind of tough to draw a contrast between democrats and republicans when the repukes are sooooo busy trying to appear to be "not that much different from the dems". They want to appear to be "moderate" or "centrist". Which of course in reality ... they are.
The repuke elites hated Reagan (who was like "one of us"). And they will hate anybody favorable to tea party folk too, for the same reason. But it just so happens ... they (tea partiers) are the republican base. They are the conservatives. They are the "contrast". Unlike the current repuke "leadership". Hopefully we can vote them out this next election or 2.
Jesus said: "Since thou art neither cold nor hot, but are lukewarm ... I will spew thee out of my mouth."
Think McCain. Think Romney ... think repukes.
Or .... just ignore this, and rely on the NYTimes or the TVNews for wisdom "from above" (conventional wisdom).
-
I doubt that those in favor of a flat tax have considered the fact that the real estate market would be devastated. Interest deductions would be eliminated. Private and commercial construction does not need a monkey wrench thrown at them while the economy is in the dumps. Charitable, education and other exemptions would also be eliminated under a fair tax plan. Good luck trying to sell that tax plan to the electorate. Changing the Commerce Clause would also be a hurdle with all the legal wrangling. .
Texascop has it ass backwards. We do not need more revenues. We need a hatchet taken to spending. It is idiotic to talk about raising taxes at a time when the economy is suffering. Spending cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars is the answer year after year. There is no quick fix and although the present tax system is terrible, the politicians could screw it up worse than it already is with a flat, fair or VAT tax.
So the fair tax sucks cause you or others would lose their intrest deductions on taxes.
really how is that different from other hand outs???
I think you have it ass backwards
-
So the fair tax sucks cause you or others would lose their intrest deductions on taxes.
really how is that different from other hand outs???
I think you have it ass backwards
First of all, learn how to read. I pointed out some of the disadvantages of the flat tax. Show me where I said the flat tax sucks. What I said was that raising taxes (Texascop) sucks. BTW, my house is paid for so I do not have interest deductions. Ask anyone in the real estate business what a flat tax would do to the housing market.
Looks like you are the one that has it ass backwards.
-
I am not convinced that most folks buy a home for the purpose of getting the interest deduction.
I have owned 3 and it was certainly a consideration. Try floating that boat and see how many irate taxpayers you get.
-
I'm sorry, but Bok is correct. While the Tea Party is popular among the majority of conservatives, it's very unpopular with other voting blocs, namely the coveted independents and certainly the left leaning moderates. The biggest glaring examples of this were with Christine O'Donnell and Joe Miller. Both were propelled into candidacy by the Tea Party, but they were soundly rejected by the rest of the voting public. The 2008 election showed us just how badly we need moderate voters.
Why is it people always name two that lost but forget the MANY that won? And what about every single ****ing poll that shows most Americans have more in common with the Tea Party than they do with the political class...especially the elites like Romney. Bitch slap for sheer stupidity and being so out of touch with the average American.
Cindie
-
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/01/06/t1larg.gallup.demid.jpg)
ion
Democrats and Republicans need independents if they have any chance whatsoever of winning.
Reagan was very conservative and won two landslide elections. That means he attracted the squishy middle. America is more conservative than people think and will vote for someone with strength of character and leadership abilities. Obama campaigned as a center (even a little right) candidate. Also, during the primaries Reagan was far behind Bush as far as the polls were concerned but managed to be the nominee (who, btw was believed to be unable to beat Carter because he was just an actor and way too conservative). A week before the election he was supposedly behind 25 points.
Some people are natural leaders and fearless (Palin has a bigger set than any of the current crop). Those that call her a quitter would do well to remember she's constantly taking flak and often extremely vicious criticism...including from her own party, but she never backs down and never apologizes and NEVER gives up. Whether she'll run or be the nominee if she does run remains to be seen but, like Reagan, she's constantly being underestimated and has the keenest political instincts I've seen in a very long time. About the time people say she's done she comes roaring back.
Cindie
E
-
I doubt that those in favor of a flat tax have considered the fact that the real estate market would be devastated. Interest deductions would be eliminated. Private and commercial construction does not need a monkey wrench thrown at them while the economy is in the dumps. Charitable, education and other exemptions would also be eliminated under a fair tax plan. Good luck trying to sell that tax plan to the electorate. Changing the Commerce Clause would also be a hurdle with all the legal wrangling. .
Texascop has it ass backwards. We do not need more revenues. We need a hatchet taken to spending. It is idiotic to talk about raising taxes at a time when the economy is suffering. Spending cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars is the answer year after year. There is no quick fix and although the present tax system is terrible, the politicians could screw it up worse than it already is with a flat, fair or VAT tax.
Are you confusing a flat tax with the fair tax? Flat tax would give everyone the same percentage of taxes (taken of of pay checks like they are now), say 10%. A fair tax would eliminate all payroll taxes and instead be a consumer tax. The government could easily make certain markets (like real estate and food) exempt from taxes (or taxed at an extremely low rate). I'd rather have a fair tax because you're only taxed on what you consume instead of what you EARNED.
Cindie
-
It's overly simplistic to say, "It's easy, quit spending more than you are making." That would work if we were trying to balance a checkbook. We're not. We have to make up a $14 TRILLION deficit. I can't wrap my mind around how cutting spending here and there will cover such a huge gap. Logic tells me that we have to go further than that or we're leaving this debt for the next generation.
I gave examples early on of crucial government programs.....highways, social security, etc. Here in Texas we get something like $2 billion per year from the federal highway funds. I shudder to imagine how quickly our interstates will erode from the increased truck traffic (thanks NAFTA) without those funds. My parents and my lone surviving grandmother depend on social security. It really hurts them when they don't get the COLA bumps. I can't imagine what would happen if it went away completely. How about federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, DEA and, to some extend, the CIA? What about crucial agencies such as the FAA? Will the oversight of airlines drop? I want to know what cuts Palin has in mind.
Why not just have the government provide only for those things specifically called for in the constitution? As for what to cut...let's start with ridiculous programs like National Endowment for the Arts and NPR and a million others. All of those useless programs should be unfunded. No farm subsidies. No bailing out companies or industries. They sink or swim on their own. Instead of paying huge pensions and other benefits because of union pressure, there's no reason a company can't decide to phase out unions (what the hell are they going to do about it...plenty of nonunion people who would love to have a job would be willing to replace them) and profits would increase tremendously. No department of Education (states can handle that). Homeland security has become a ridiculously bloated bureaucracy. Get rid of earmarks. The FAA could function quite well in the private sector as could the TSA. National highways are important for commerce and would be worthy of government funding. FBI and other national law enforcement agencies fall under the category of protecting the country (a kind of domestic "army" if you will). Phase out social security by having younger people put their money in private retirement funds. You wouldn't have to cut grandma out (this is a myth created by Democrats and not one Republican or conservative has EVER supported that). I have a 92 year old grandmother, too. Families used to care for their elderly relatives. My husband who is 8 years older than me grew up in a Donna Reed world. His grandmother lived with his family. He always had cookies or other goodies waiting for him after school. Welfare and other safety nets should have a time limit. And no extra money because you pop out an extra kid. Rather than pay for generations of lifetime recipients create jobs programs, funds for education (from adult remedial to community colleges). In the long run you would create educated, productive tax payers who don't need to suck from the government teat. Community day care centers (not funded by the government but paid for by these new workers), which would also provide jobs for ex welfare recipients, would provide a place for children of working parents to be cared for. Absolutely NO government unions. It's called government SERVICE for a reason. When the private sector who pay their salaries makes half of what they do, there's something incredibly wrong with that system. And they hold the citizens hostage. Senate and congresspersons' salaries should be reduced by half as should their aides. When members of the military are making a quarter of what they do for putting their asses on the line it's beyond disgusting. Stop funding the UN and move their asses out of the United States. There's no reason we should fund an agency who seems to exist simply to denigrate the US. Reduce the amounts we give to other countries and impose tariffs on imports so that American products can compete. That would also force some companies to open factories here in the US to avoid such fees, again providing jobs for Americans which in turn creates more taxpayers. Whether you have a flat tax or fair tax (imagine the extra profitss a company would have if they didn't have to give so much to the government). Again, this would allow them to hire more workers and would provide incentive for more people to start small businesses.
This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.
cindie
-
Are you confusing a flat tax with the fair tax? Flat tax would give everyone the same percentage of taxes (taken of of pay checks like they are now), say 10%. A fair tax would eliminate all payroll taxes and instead be a consumer tax. The government could easily make certain markets (like real estate and food) exempt from taxes (or taxed at an extremely low rate). I'd rather have a fair tax because you're only taxed on what you consume instead of what you EARNED.
Cindie
You are correct. However, I am leery of government period when they start talking about taxes. For example, in Louisiana voters passed a bill to reduce the state sales tax in exchange for an increase in income tax. It was supposed to be a small amount. It turned out to be a large amount. Taxpayers suffered 6 years because of this law which has since been repealed.
-
Reagan was very conservative and won two landslide elections. That means he attracted the squishy middle. America is more conservative than people think and will vote for someone with strength of character and leadership abilities.
...she's (Palin) constantly being underestimated and has the keenest political instincts I've seen in a very long time. About the time people say she's done she comes roaring back.
While not disagreeing with the essence of your claim, that America is perhaps more conservative at it's core than many think. However it might be a far stretch to translate Reagen era electorate results into a picture of our current populous.
On a curious note, for those of us whom perhaps may not be so well informed. How has Palin demonstrated especially keen political interlect? Other than perhaps lashing herself upon the rhetoric of the Tea Party-Republican movement.
-
Why not just have the government provide only for those things specifically called for in the constitution? As for what to cut...let's start with ridiculous programs like National Endowment for the Arts and NPR and a million others. All of those useless programs should be unfunded. No farm subsidies. No bailing out companies or industries. They sink or swim on their own. Instead of paying huge pensions and other benefits because of union pressure, there's no reason a company can't decide to phase out unions (what the hell are they going to do about it...plenty of nonunion people who would love to have a job would be willing to replace them) and profits would increase tremendously. No department of Education (states can handle that). Homeland security has become a ridiculously bloated bureaucracy. Get rid of earmarks. The FAA could function quite well in the private sector as could the TSA. National highways are important for commerce and would be worthy of government funding. FBI and other national law enforcement agencies fall under the category of protecting the country (a kind of domestic "army" if you will). Phase out social security by having younger people put their money in private retirement funds. You wouldn't have to cut grandma out (this is a myth created by Democrats and not one Republican or conservative has EVER supported that). I have a 92 year old grandmother, too. Families used to care for their elderly relatives. My husband who is 8 years older than me grew up in a Donna Reed world. His grandmother lived with his family. He always had cookies or other goodies waiting for him after school. Welfare and other safety nets should have a time limit. And no extra money because you pop out an extra kid. Rather than pay for generations of lifetime recipients create jobs programs, funds for education (from adult remedial to community colleges). In the long run you would create educated, productive tax payers who don't need to suck from the government teat. Community day care centers (not funded by the government but paid for by these new workers), which would also provide jobs for ex welfare recipients, would provide a place for children of working parents to be cared for. Absolutely NO government unions. It's called government SERVICE for a reason. When the private sector who pay their salaries makes half of what they do, there's something incredibly wrong with that system. And they hold the citizens hostage. Senate and congresspersons' salaries should be reduced by half as should their aides. When members of the military are making a quarter of what they do for putting their asses on the line it's beyond disgusting. Stop funding the UN and move their asses out of the United States. There's no reason we should fund an agency who seems to exist simply to denigrate the US. Reduce the amounts we give to other countries and impose tariffs on imports so that American products can compete. That would also force some companies to open factories here in the US to avoid such fees, again providing jobs for Americans which in turn creates more taxpayers. Whether you have a flat tax or fair tax (imagine the extra profitss a company would have if they didn't have to give so much to the government). Again, this would allow them to hire more workers and would provide incentive for more people to start small businesses.
This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.
cindie
A very thoughtfull post, and I agree with most of it. Plus, the last thing we need is a mushy RINO like Romney.
-
While not disagreeing with the essence of your claim, that America is perhaps more conservative at it's core than many think. However it might be a far stretch to translate Reagen era electorate results into a picture of our current populous.
On a curious note, for those of us whom perhaps may not be so well informed. How has Palin demonstrated especially keen political interlect? Other than perhaps lashing herself upon the rhetoric of the Tea Party-Republican movement.
Why would the character of the American people change? The same thing was said about people then as well...they aren't conservative enough to vote for him. Besides, more than liberal or conservative, if Americans have a choice between someone who exudes strength, confidence, patriotism, and a positive outlook and someone who is weak, ineffective, and arrogant, the former will win every time.
As for Palin, everyone said she was finished after she left the governorship, but here she is, front and center, being a voice for conservatives on the national stage.
Refudiate (it was the word of the year) has become part of the national lexicon.
Death panels became part of the national conversation when discussing the debacle that became the health care bill.
She posts on facebook or tweets and it instantly becomes news. Even if the lamestream media tries to put a negative spin on what she says they have to report her actual words, thus she gets her message out to the masses. She uses this "new" media more effectively than anyone else.
The majority of the candidates she endorsed were elected, including several governorships. Should she decide to run, she'll be able to call in quite a few favors.
Whatever else people thing of her, no one doubts her honor or integrity.
Where the hell are any of the other conservative "leaders"? Romney evidently doesn't even think he needs to speak to the American people about the concerns of the day the's earned his candidacy...he and the other elites just believe it's his turn. Palin is out there every day fighting against the elites and the left...and she scares the shit out of them.
Everyone said her daughter being on Dancing with the Stars would be her undoing (though why the actions of her ADULT daughter would have anything to do with Sara is beyond me). Yet, Bristol earned her own respect and was kind of America's sweetheart at the end.
Everyone said her Sara Palin's Alaska would show her to be frivolous and not a serious contender. Yet, many people who didn't know her were able to see her as one of them and tough as nails with an adventurous spirit, unafraid to try new things. Even my best friend's partner (who isn't the least bit conservative and thought she was kind of a joke) said he understood her better and, probably much to his dismay, developed kind of a grudging respect for her.
Cindie
-
On a curious note, for those of us whom perhaps may not be so well informed. How has Palin demonstrated especially keen political interlect? Other than perhaps lashing herself upon the rhetoric of the Tea Party-Republican movement.
Palin has a plan to create millions of good paying jobs and at the same time cut down our dependence on foreign oil and thus reduce our balance of payment. No, it is not dumb ass green jobs; it is using the plentiful resources we have in this country to drill for oil and tap into our abundance of natural gas. I have asked this question many times who has more experience in this field? Most if not all of the bunch running for the nomination have never seen an oil platform in the Gulf of M.or Anwar. However, they have been to many shit hole countries throughout the world on junkets. I doubt that you can find anyone in Congress that has a Keener Political Intellect than her in the field of Energy. BTW, solving our energy problem will help to pay down our debt, create many good paying jobs and is a National Security issue to boot.
-
Some great responses to Gratiot's quire " ... How has Palin demonstrated especially keen political interlect? Other than perhaps lashing herself upon the rhetoric of the Tea Party-Republican movement."
H5 all.
-
I for one will not vote for Romney. If the mushy, middle of the road Repubs nominate him, many conservatives will stay home. We tried McCain and that did not work out too well. Romney is an extremist since he signed Romney Healthcare and he was for abortion but now he is against it. He is a flip flopper and is too cozy with homosexual activists.
BINGO! You said it. DO.NOT.WANT.
I wonder what he replies to the community organizer's Hellcare will be, since he introduced RomneyCare.
-
BINGO! You said it. DO.NOT.WANT.
I wonder what he replies to the community organizer's Hellcare will be, since he introduced RomneyCare.
I am hoping that Hannity will ask him that question tomorrow night. Romney is a smooth operator who will bullshit his way out of it. He will state that it was a mistake and that if he had to do it over, he would not sign it. More baloney coming from him will be the differences between the 2 plans. Both are bad and it does not matter how you slice it. Plus, it shows his poor judgement and policy making decisions.
-
Hmm .. yes. Romney is supposed to be such a good businessman, ie good on the economics front ... that he thought socialized medicine would somehow improve the States economy?
Hows that work again??
-
Reagan was very conservative and won two landslide elections. That means he attracted the squishy middle. America is more conservative than people think and will vote for someone with strength of character and leadership abilities. Obama campaigned as a center (even a little right) candidate. Also, during the primaries Reagan was far behind Bush as far as the polls were concerned but managed to be the nominee (who, btw was believed to be unable to beat Carter because he was just an actor and way too conservative). A week before the election he was supposedly behind 25 points.
Some people are natural leaders and fearless (Palin has a bigger set than any of the current crop). Those that call her a quitter would do well to remember she's constantly taking flak and often extremely vicious criticism...including from her own party, but she never backs down and never apologizes and NEVER gives up. Whether she'll run or be the nominee if she does run remains to be seen but, like Reagan, she's constantly being underestimated and has the keenest political instincts I've seen in a very long time. About the time people say she's done she comes roaring back.
Amen. It's only those who insist on permitting the Leftist mainstream media to influence their views who think Palin is unqualified or inexperienced or lacking in fortitude or whatever. Her own actions prove them wrong, but if people insist on having those actions filtered to them through the liberal, Palin-hating press, then they can't possibly have an accurate picture of her.
Hell, just watching Sarah Palin's Alaska shows that she's got more natural presidential ability than most of the silver-tongued slimeballs who actually get party nominations.
While not disagreeing with the essence of your claim, that America is perhaps more conservative at it's core than many think. However it might be a far stretch to translate Reagen era electorate results into a picture of our current populous.
On a curious note, for those of us whom perhaps may not be so well informed. How has Palin demonstrated especially keen political interlect? Other than perhaps lashing herself upon the rhetoric of the Tea Party-Republican movement.
Wait, did I log onto Democratic Underground? Nah, can't be - I don't have a membership there :)
Reagan's success proved that it is most certainly possible to be a staunch, patriotic conservative and attract independents. All one has to do is get one's staunch, patriotic conservatism out there, simply and honestly articulated, and the conservatism of independents will be awakened.
As for the Tea Party, if only everyone would "lash themselves" against its "rhetoric". Or rather, if only everyone would take a hint and adopt their common sense positions regarding government and the people's rights. We'd have a much better country, then.
-
Great topic and interesting replies. I like Palin, I really do, and respect the staunch support of her I find on this forum.
With that out of the way, the thing that keeps flashing in my mind is the comment "if Palin isn't the nominee I will stay home"...
lacarnut, you and I have touched on this before. I want what you want, a true conservative voice and RINO be damned. But honestly, if we don't weed them out in the primary we are given no choice. I would NEVER stay home election night if it meant giving Barry one less vote to counter. Can you share your thoughts on HOW we can ensure a Palin nomination?
"All that is neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
-
Great topic and interesting replies. I like Palin, I really do, and respect the staunch support of her I find on this forum.
With that out of the way, the thing that keeps flashing in my mind is the comment "if Palin isn't the nominee I will stay home"...
lacarnut, you and I have touched on this before. I want what you want, a true conservative voice and RINO be damned. But honestly, if we don't weed them out in the primary we are given no choice. I would NEVER stay home election night if it meant giving Barry one less vote to counter. Can you share your thoughts on HOW we can ensure a Palin nomination?
"All that is neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
If Palin is not the nominee, I will probably hold my nose and vote for the Repub provided it is not Romney. Obama has already done a great deal of harm which will take a real conservative 8 or more years to reverse. If we elect a weak kneed-ed pansy ass RINO, very little will improve. Cutting around the edges will not get us back on the right track. In all probably, a weak Repub President will be a one term-er. What is needed is a forcefull conservative who will run over liberals and environmentalist like a freight train and go to the people to get his or her programs passed. Not one Repub that I knows has a plan to create millions of good paying jobs except Palin. Drilling new fields for oil and natural gas will not only provide millions of jobs plus reduce our balance of payments and improve our national security.
Some Repubs think Palin is too controversial and do not give her a chance to beat Obama. I think the Magic Negro is the one that does not stand a chance of getting reelected. Unemployment will stay high and that will be his waterloo. However, an idiot like McCain stating that Obama would make a good President in the debates is not a recipe for winning.
I think at this juncture, she will make a decision on whether to run or not. The only thing we can do is to encourage her.
-
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJdJmLmz0JU[/youtube]
Gotta luv RINOs. /s
-
Well, it doesn't make me any difference as I don't like Romney anyway.
-
Our nominee must be someone who believes in a strong national defense, secured borders, and economic policies that lead to lower taxes, less spending, and limited government. Now, Romney has his strong points, but I hardly call an individual mandate in health insurance something to run on. As an animal lover, it would be difficult for me to vote for someone who straps a dog on the top of his car for 12 hours and then brushes it away as a petty attack- shows the guy's character, or therefore lack of.
-
Ethanol Strategery (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/31/ethanol-strategery)
It's a tale of two candidates, at this point the two frontrunners in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, each trying to create contrast not only with President Obama but also with the other. With each passing day, the contrast is becoming clearer -- and in a way that could help Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty overcome former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's early lead in the Republican horserace.
It started several weeks ago with Romney's "no apologies" approach to Romneycare, a Massachusetts version of Obamacare no matter how hard Mitt Romney tries to frame it differently. >>>
This is in stark contrast to Pawlenty's repudiation of his own prior position on cap-and-trade. Pawlenty has said he made a mistake and has apologized -- which he should -- for having ever supported that policy: "I've said I was wrong. It was a mistake, and I'm sorry. You're going to have a few clunkers in your record, and we all do, and that's one of mine. I just admit it. I don't try to duck it, bob it, weave it, try to explain it away. I'm just telling you, I made a mistake." >>>
In his remarks last week, >>> Tim Pawlenty came out -- and I repeat this was in Iowa -- against ethanol subsidies:
We need to phase out subsidies across all sources of energy and all industries, including ethanol. We simply can't afford them anymore. >>>
Romney, the would-be conservative, came out with this: "I support the subsidy of ethanol. I believe it's an important part of our energy solution in this country." Again, Romney's words could easily have come from Barack Obama.
========================================
Romney --- Obamalite.
-
========================================
Romney --- Obamalite.
Janice,
I'm not sure what your are implying with your link to ethanol.
If against, then we agree. Romney, like a chameleon, is always changing colors.
In in Iowa, gold is as corn, both in color and for political gain.
-
If you read what I posted above ... its not just ethanol.
Been to the intro thread B9?
-
If you read what I posted above ... its not just ethanol.
Been to the intro thread B9?
I have. But you introduced ETOH, and so I addressed.
Which one of these candidates, now expressed or future implied, will come against it?
-
Ethanol is a Greenie pipe dream. Shows exactly where Romney sides. I woulden't vote for him in a Gazillion years.
-
Ethanol is a Greenie pipe dream. Shows exactly where Romney sides. I woulden't vote for him in a Gazillion years.
And everyone that goes into Iowa. Watch and wait.
-
Ethanol is a Greenie pipe dream. Shows exactly where Romney sides. I woulden't vote for him in a Gazillion years.
I would vote for Hillary over Obama.
-
Romney is wrong on healthcare.
He is wrong on the roll of government.
And hes wrong on science.
He is no conservative and cannot be trusted, therefor I can never in good conscience support him. If he wins the nomination I will vote for him to defeat 0bama. Heck, I will vote for this orange juice can to defeat 0bama. But I will not campaign FOR him. We cannot reverse the destruction of our republic if we put another big government panderer in the White House. If a conservative wins the nomination I will campaign FOR him/her to win, AS WELL as AGAINST Lord Stinky. This I will do to SAVE our republic.
Theres a big difference this time around. Another John McCain will not suffice.
-
Romney is wrong on healthcare.
He is wrong on the roll of government.
And hes wrong on science.
He is no conservative and cannot be trusted, therefor I can never in good conscience support him. If he wins the nomination I will vote for him to defeat 0bama. Heck, I will vote for this orange juice can to defeat 0bama. But I will not campaign FOR him. We cannot reverse the destruction of our republic if we put another big government panderer in the White House. If a conservative wins the nomination I will campaign FOR him/her to win, AS WELL as AGAINST Lord Stinky. This I will do to SAVE our republic.
Theres a big difference this time around. Another John McCain will not suffice.
Still not sure of you and your convictions. Former President, George Bush, enacted the Energy Policy of 2005. Romney supports that. Every Democrat and Republican in the midwest is signed on. Watch. Every Republican and future contender for the 2012 presidential election will signature this legislation. Tell tale. Known by by the company they keep.
-
I would vote for Hillary over Obama.
So would I, and I actually wished she won the Democratic nomination in 2008.
-
I get the impression that Hillary is tired these days. She's not speaking with the same fire she had in the past and she's looking pretty well jet-lagged. Of course, she's out shuttling diplomacy (such as that is these days) while Barry is on the golf course or kickin' back on AF1 heading out to yet another vacation.
I suppose while Hillary's policies still largely suck, at least she's got some sort of a work ethic. Barry? Not so much.
-
I get the impression that Hillary is tired these days. She's not speaking with the same fire she had in the past and she's looking pretty well jet-lagged. Of course, she's out shuttling diplomacy (such as that is these days) while Barry is on the golf course or kickin' back on AF1 heading out to yet another vacation.
I suppose while Hillary's policies still largely suck, at least she's got some sort of a work ethic. Barry? Not so much.
Ya don't suppose that Hillary looks that way from busting her ass trying to make amends with our allies that Obama so carelessly insults, do you?
-
Ya don't suppose that Hillary looks that way from busting her ass trying to make amends with our allies that Obama so carelessly insults, do you?
I think that's EXACTLY what's going on. If I were her, I'd be getting tired of cleaning up Barry's messes. She might need to have a word with Me-shell to have her strap a bib onto him every time he forays out of the Oval Orifice.
-
Still not sure of you and your convictions. Former President, George Bush, enacted the Energy Policy of 2005. Romney supports that. Every Democrat and Republican in the midwest is signed on. Watch. Every Republican and future contender for the 2012 presidential election will signature this legislation. Tell tale. Known by by the company they keep.
Let me spell it out for you. Most conservatives think Bush's energy policy of 2005 sucks. Ethanol is the dumbest idea ever concocted. It uses a food product to make fuel. It has caused food prices to go thru the roof. Millions are starving because corn along with wheat have increased in price. Even Al Gore said it was a bad mistake. So, why does the governmet keep pissing money down the drain by subsidizing this turkey? Billions for wind and solar is also a waste of tax dollars because it will INCREASE the cost of energy.
BTW, I do not care that every D & R signed on to this bill. Let private sector develop green energy instead of using tax payer dollars. Spain has given up on windmills because it has almost bankrupted the country. A great deal of money is being pissed away on green energy not to mention it's inefficiency and adding energy costs to the consumer. .
Hope this clears it up for you.
-
Romney reaffirms stance that global warming is real (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/06/04/romney_reaffirms_stance_that_global_warming_is_real/)
MANCHESTER, N.H. — In the first town hall of his freshly announced presidential campaign, Mitt Romney yesterday reaffirmed his view that global warming is occurring and that humans are contributing to it, a position that has been rejected in recent years by many Republicans as the issue has taken on a greater partisan tinge.
===========================
I would agree with him about signs of climate change. Been going on for a million years. Where I part ways is the human-contributing part. This apparently is the chosen candidate of the Republicrat Establishment and "moderate independents." He must also be hoping the liberal lemmings will go for him. Ignorant people can learn. Stupid is forever.
-
Let me spell it out for you. Most conservatives think Bush's energy policy of 2005 sucks. Ethanol is the dumbest idea ever concocted. It uses a food product to make fuel. It has caused food prices to go thru the roof. Millions are starving because corn along with wheat have increased in price. Even Al Gore said it was a bad mistake. So, why does the governmet keep pissing money down the drain by subsidizing this turkey? Billions for wind and solar is also a waste of tax dollars because it will INCREASE the cost of energy.
BTW, I do not care that every D & R signed on to this bill. Let private sector develop green energy instead of using tax payer dollars. Spain has given up on windmills because it has almost bankrupted the country. A great deal of money is being pissed away on green energy not to mention it's inefficiency and adding energy costs to the consumer. .
Hope this clears it up for you.
Yes. Bush was a very decent, very nice guy. Unlike the current Commissar. But just because he had an "R" after his name does NOT mean he was a conservative. In fact he was NOT.
So playing the "Bush card" is not goin to wash here B9. I call. What have you got?
-
===========================
I would agree with him about signs of climate change. Been going on for a million years. Where I part ways is the human-contributing part. This apparently is the chosen candidate of the Republicrat Establishment and "moderate independents." He must also be hoping the liberal lemmings will go for him. Ignorant people can learn. Stupid is forever.
Romney must think he can win the nomination with liberal crap like this. I think he has just stepped into a pile of it. Conservatives and the Tea Party folks will vigorously oppose this turkey. I will not vote for this liberal POS under any circumstances because health care is my number one issue.
-
Yes. Bush was a very decent, very nice guy. Unlike the current Commissar. But just because he had an "R" after his name does NOT mean he was a conservative. In fact he was NOT.
So playing the "Bush card" is not goin to wash here B9. I call. What have you got?
Go back to post #96. I'm against the EP of 2005. I'm not playing any card, particular the "Bush", only pointing to the facts of Washington politics. It takes no political courage for Pawlenty or any other politician to speak out against ethanol subsidies, as even the Farm Bureau is accepting the idea of reduced subsidies. They're smart enough to know that eliminating tax credits and tariffs does not remove the 10% blending mandate. Hence, the game goes on.
-
===========================
This apparently is the chosen candidate of the Republicrat Establishment and "moderate independents."
What makes you say that?