View Full Version : Tea Party & Sarah Palin are dead to me...
Belmont31R
02-10-10, 17:48
I've gone to a few Tea Party's including the first ones like at the Alamo with Glenn Beck there. I've paid attention to the entire concept from the start.
Its now dead to me.
Reason being is whoever decided to put themselves in charge have turned it into just another political organization straying from its goals. $500 tickets to the convention? So its no different than the high dollar liberal fund raisers that they do to go see some "celebrity politician" speak? I, and most other Tea Party "common folk" hate politicians and think they are only as useful as far as you can throw them. I don't like the idea of celebrity politicians. Our Founder's brought government as a nesessary evil that should only be big enough to do essential but basic functions. Read the Constitution, and its all simple stuff as far as what the government is supposed to do. We, as citizens, are always supposed to be skeptical of our government, and give them a short leash. So why do we need these celebrity polticians with people wearing t-shirts, clammoring for autographs, chanting their names. We have elevated the most dangerous people in society to like likes Elvis & Michael Jackson in the sense of the almost rabid support of them.
Here in Texas we have our elections coming for the governor. 3 republicans running. Rick Perry, Hutchinson (current senator), and Debra Medina.
Medina is the only small government candidate running. The other two are big government RINO's. Perry is better than most but still a typical politician. Hutchinson as Senator did things like vote for national debt limit raisers, bank bailouts, etc. Medina is VERY pro gun attending open carry events, wants to do away with property taxes, and is actually very conservative.
So who gets endorsed? The big government RINO current governor Perry.
Who does Palin endorse in Arizona? John McCain. The same McCain who supports big government, bank bailouts, amnesty for illegals, entitlement spending, etc.
Endorsing two RINO's all the while ignoring the two small government conservatives running?
The "Tea Party" is just another political hack organization without any apparent standards and is obviously lacking any integrity in keeping to its core values. Endorsing RINO's left and right, celebrity politicians, high dollar events.... Leave that shit to the big government republicans and democrats. The Tea Party started with everyday people just showing up to voice their opinion and show support for one another. What happened to that? I can see the wheels coming off, and it will skid out of control and crash. No one that I know who "WAS" into the Tea Party movement wants this or thinks its a good idea. The movement was better off just holding rallies with everyday people. I can't even remember the last time I heard of anything like that happening. That was its biggest strength. People do take notice of thousands of people showing up somewhere. People really did take notice when the entire Capital area was filled with people protesting the government.
Regarding Palin she has shown her colors endorsing the RINO's. The more I hear her speak the more stupid she sounds to me. I would vote for her but we can do a lot better. She gives, practically without any thought, ammo for the liberals to use against her that make her look stupid and idiotic. The writing her talking points down thing on her hand, and obviously reading off it while talking? I know its trivial, and Obama cannot speak without a telepromter, but who couldn't see it coming? Not being able to come up with answers to basic questions? She is a good woman, and has done some good things. We need someone better to win. If you can't think on the fly, and come up with answers you are going to get murdered in politics. It will get hammered home to oblivion. For instance...look at the newspaper question. Its a simple basic question that would illicit a basic response. If she doesn't read an actual paper newpaper just say so, and say you read online articles as most Americans are doing today. With the advance in technology its far easier to get more info/articles quicker and from a larger variety of sources, and that there are too many to name as people can expect. Ive watched numerous recent interviews with her, and all she has is memorized answers she repeats over and over. Her answers arent very insightful or particularly bright, either.
What people need to understand is that the left is full of spin machines, and they know politics better than the right does. Obama would destroy Palin in a straight up debate. The right lets them get away with this non-stop. Now we might just get lucky, and the country in 2 years will be so far gone people would elect a stump over Obama someone like Palin could walk in but I'm not of the opinion that is a chance that should be taken. I want Obama debating someone who leaves him stuttering and off his talking points. Palin cannot do this. She cannot even handle interviews with Fox news which should be the most comfortable for her.
Now she is "married" to the Tea Party, and its all going downhill from here on that train wreck.
Thoughts and opinions?
SeriousStudent
02-10-10, 17:55
I was at the Alamo that day as well.
I am so tired of RINO's I could vomit blood.
I'm voting for Medina in the primary.
Outlander Systems
02-10-10, 18:04
Dead to me too, bro.
The nail in the coffin? Trying to dethrone Ron Paul, "The Taxpayers' Best Friend".
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/tea-partiers-fighting-against-ron-paul/
Disgusting. The whole thing has been co-opted for more bullshit business-as-usual, partisan trash.
It MAY have been a legitimate movement in its infancy, but now its a ****in' joke.
You get two choices in this country, and frankly, they both suck. The closest thing we've had to a third choice, in my lifetime, has been hijacked by one of the two.
BAU...
Dead to me too, bro.
The nail in the coffin? Trying to dethrone Ron Paul, "The Taxpayers' Best Friend".
I could care less about the tea party people etc. However, Ron Paul is not great hero either. He stuck earmarks in for shrimp farmers in his district. He talks the talk but cannot walk the walk.
Medina is breath of fresh air...albeit a minnow in a sea of sharks.
I normally vote the stinkiest turd in the dem primary for grins but I'll put my voice behind Medina in the repub too ss.
Anyone but K...what a disappointment.
I'm gonna hold my thoughts on the tea party till the wash is done. I'm pretty much sick of anyone holding office today and ready for a greenhorn public servant.
SeriousStudent
02-10-10, 18:56
I wish Greg Abbott would run for governor. He's been great as Attorney General. A lot of the state reciprocity agreements we have for CHL are due to him. Very pro2A.
A wise man said, "The history of those who demand all or nothing, is that they typically end up with nothing."
The "pox on their house" was widely applied to the GOP in general just a couple years ago and helped - helped as in aided and abetted - the rise of Obama.
So chill out, work in the party with which you mostly agree and don't repeat the mistakes of 2008.
I could care less about the tea party people etc. However, Ron Paul is not great hero either. He stuck earmarks in for shrimp farmers in his district. He talks the talk but cannot walk the walk.
Link?
And what did you expect from Palin? Of course she's dumber than a box of rocks. That's why her husband is so involved. He takes care of business, she's the pretty face. Anyone who supports her has to be off their rocker. She can't get a straight sentence out regarding her stance on issues.
RINOs are going to use the Tea Party to get power back. We've known that from the offset. Keep pushing. Don't let them. Be the voice. You have to educate the masses. The responsibility is on YOU and ONLY YOU. You can't control anyone else.
A wise man said, "The history of those who demand all or nothing, is that they typically end up with nothing."
The "pox on their house" was widely applied to the GOP in general just a couple years ago and helped - helped as in aided and abetted - the rise of Obama.
So chill out, work in the party with which you mostly agree and don't repeat the mistakes of 2008.
The irony is, that's what we want. Nothing. No bailouts no welfare no gun control no income taxes etc etc... But the politicians want to give us everything, because with each thing comes a string, and that string attaches the politicians to more power.
Submariner
02-10-10, 19:39
http://www.yourfunnystuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/sarah-palin-is-the-joker.jpg
Belmont31R
02-10-10, 19:50
A wise man said, "The history of those who demand all or nothing, is that they typically end up with nothing."
The "pox on their house" was widely applied to the GOP in general just a couple years ago and helped - helped as in aided and abetted - the rise of Obama.
So chill out, work in the party with which you mostly agree and don't repeat the mistakes of 2008.
Im not at all an all or nothing type of person when it comes to politics.
Just a few basic principles a person must believe in.
Small government, free enterprise, low spending/fiscal responsibility, and a strong belief in personal liberty & the Constitution.
I do not like RINO's because they go against those beliefs. McCain for exmaple. Supporter of gov entitlement programs, wishy washy on personal liberty, and a big government believer. Him and others like him are just as responsible for the huge bloated government we have now who now routinely spends trillions of dollars it doesnt have in social welfare and entitlement spending. People blame the wars all the time now. The US gov spends more each year just on Social Security than Iraq since 2003. More in food stamp programs each day than we spend in Iraq. We've become a nation where welfare and entitlement spending is more important to people than national security.
Glenn Beck has been hammering on this lately. Progressives are in both parties, and their are conservatives in both parties. Plenty of republicans would never vote to cut spending on entitlement programs. Look at them harping on democrats for cutting medicare spending. I appluad them for that but not the 1 trillion in spending that would come after it. They need to cut the spending by at least half if we ever want to get out of the 14 trillion debt we are in. Republicans left and right voting to up the debt limit and spend spend spend. Clinton was more fiscally conservative than Bush.
Both parties are going to run us into the ground. Democrats are the speed boat and republicans are the dingy. Both parties by and large are social liberals who keep the entitlements up. Republicans from 2001-2007 added how many trillions to the debt? Did they ever do anything to curb spending?
Submariner
02-10-10, 20:12
Both parties by and large are social liberals who keep the entitlements up. Republicans from 2001-2007 added how many trillions to the debt? Did they ever do anything to curb spending?
Look at the debt added by Reagan.
I could care less about the tea party people etc. However, Ron Paul is not great hero either. He stuck earmarks in for shrimp farmers in his district. He talks the talk but cannot walk the walk.
If I'm not mistaken, his logic in doing such things is that if the government's going to take the money from his constituents, he'll at least do what he can to get it back in some fashion.
Belmont31R
02-10-10, 20:29
Look at the debt added by Reagan.
Reagan also had bank bailouts, amnesty, and the MG ban just off the top of my head.
If I could have a wish come true with all of the this political BS it would be that Ted Nugent would run for President! Anybody with me?
If I could have a wish come true with all of the this political BS it would be that Ted Nugent would run for President! Anybody with me?
What the hell, I'm in!
He certainly couldn't do any worse than the current batch clowns on Capital Hill. At least Ted is a straight shooter (no pun intended) and pro 2A.
I'm hoping that Lt. Col. West runs for the white house eventually.
variablebinary
02-10-10, 20:51
What the hell, I'm in!
He certainly couldn't do any worse than the current batch clowns on Capital Hill. At least Ted is a straight shooter (no pun intended) and pro 2A.
I'm hoping that Lt. Col. West runs for the white house eventually.
The problem is always after they get elected. That is when they sell out to federal power
ThirdWatcher
02-10-10, 21:20
I'm hoping that Lt. Col. West runs for the white house eventually.
Man, that was my first thought when I read the title of this thread!!!
Outlander Systems
02-10-10, 21:31
I want this man as POTUS:
http://www.army.mil/-images/2009/01/15/28359/army.mil-28359-2009-01-15-070105.jpg
ForTehNguyen
02-10-10, 21:33
I'm voting for Medina also
ThirdWatcher
02-10-10, 21:40
I would vote for General Shinseki.
Given more time to mature, I think Pat Tillman would have made a great president. I think he could have bridged some gaps in this country. Tough and patriotic enough that no one could ever question his balls or patriotism. Smart enough to question the government and its wars.
http://weblog.timoregan.com/uploaded_images/pat-tillman-730221.jpg
I could care less about the tea party people etc. However, Ron Paul is not great hero either. He stuck earmarks in for shrimp farmers in his district. He talks the talk but cannot walk the walk.
Ron Paul always votes "no" on the appropriations bills he requests earmarks for.
Belmont31R
02-10-10, 22:11
The problem is always after they get elected. That is when they sell out to federal power
Thats true in most cases. With Obama the writing was on the wall well before the election.
I argued and tried to educate my MIL endlessly about him. She voted for him, and now is "surprised" by what he has done. She is a typical case of not looking into anything beyond what her TV says to her. Millions of Americans are like this. Too bothered to bother with politics expect during election season, and then vote for someone because of some BS reason. With that said we get the government we deserve, and maybe one day people will wake up if its not too late.
Progressives thrive on the weak, stupid, and "disadvantaged" looking for a "free" handout.
ThirdWatcher
02-10-10, 22:15
Look at the debt added by Reagan.
Much of it was spent on armaments. At least no one ever doubted RR had the guts to pull the trigger.
IMO, this country is overdue for a strong leader. Our first president was a great general and I think it's time to get back to basics.
As far as nugent goes, are we really supporting a dead beat dad who was pretty close to being a pedo? If any liberal pulled the same shit as nugent we would never let it die. But people seem to idolize the guy because he likes guns and can sing.
As far as nugent goes, are we really supporting a dead beat dad who was pretty close to being a pedo? If any liberal pulled the same shit as nugent we would never let it die. But people seem to idolize the guy because he likes guns and can sing.
And man can he sing!
Much of it was spent on armaments. At least no one ever doubted RR had the guts to pull the trigger.
IMO, this country is overdue for a strong leader. Our first president was a great general and I think it's time to get back to basics.
If you want to get back to basics, no public education, huge decrease in military spending, gone with medicare and social security, gone with regulations of monopolies, gone with food & drug regulations, gone with federal funding for state projects, and so much more . I'm not sure we could ever go back to the basics of the founding principals because we're already to far along, we can however put the breaks on a lot of shit to keep us from digging the deepest hole possible.
And man can he sing!
And I agree, I like old elton johns stuff, but I sure as hell don't admire him as a man.
I could care less about the tea party people etc. However, Ron Paul is not great hero either. He stuck earmarks in for shrimp farmers in his district. He talks the talk but cannot walk the walk.
A good write up on that (http://dailypaul.com/node/1135)
Ron Paul has my vote, he's as close to decent as a politician can be.
If I'm not mistaken, his logic in doing such things is that if the government's going to take the money from his constituents, he'll at least do what he can to get it back in some fashion.
And this is different than any other politician how? They all want "their fair share of the pie."
Reagan also had bank bailouts, amnesty, and the MG ban just off the top of my head.
Don't blame Reagan for the MG ban. My understanding is that he was ready to veto the GOPA of 86 because of the ban and his advisors and the gun rights people prevailed on him to sign it because the GOPA overall was a big win for gun owners.
Ron Paul always votes "no" on the appropriations bills he requests earmarks for.
So?
Why does he request the earmark in the first place? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-C-Y
NinjaMedic
02-10-10, 23:32
+1 for Medina
A good write up on that (http://dailypaul.com/node/1135)
Ron Paul has my vote, he's as close to decent as a politician can be.
That was a bunch of excuses for govt to intrude on things and spend money on things that are not within the Constitution.
Everyone else can tell a good story on why their earmarks are so important as well.
Don't blame Reagan for the MG ban. My understanding is that he was ready to veto the GOPA of 86 because of the ban and his advisors and the gun rights people prevailed on him to sign it because the GOPA overall was a big win for gun owners.
Ronald Reagan wasn't pro-gun in the way that most of us read the 2nd, he was a sportsman pro gun. He was against "assault rifles" and anything seen as scary.
So I don't buy he did it to save us from worst legislation, he may have given speeches about locking up the crooks, but it still doesn't mean he saw a reason for you or I to own and mg42.
Ronald Reagan wasn't pro-gun in the way that most of us read the 2nd, he was a sportsman pro gun. He was against "assault rifles" and anything seen as scary.
Can you support this? I don't have any counter evidence but I am not the one making the claim
So I don't buy he did it to save us from worst legislation, he may have given speeches about locking up the crooks, but it still doesn't mean he saw a reason for you or I to own and mg42.
????. People on the inside at the time said he was willing to veto the GOPA of 86 because of the MG ban. Does he need to get up and make speeches about MG too?
Belmont31R
02-10-10, 23:56
If you want to get back to basics, no public education, huge decrease in military spending, gone with medicare and social security, gone with regulations of monopolies, gone with food & drug regulations, gone with federal funding for state projects, and so much more . I'm not sure we could ever go back to the basics of the founding principals because we're already to far along, we can however put the breaks on a lot of shit to keep us from digging the deepest hole possible.
I don't have a problem with public education. It does, however, need to be locally funded by people who send their kids there.
Medicare should be done away with. States can enact their own care plans if they like.
Social security is nothing but a ponzi scheme. It makes Bernie Madoff look like a street bum.
Military spending should be overhauled. I remember several instances while I was in of waste, abuse, and fraud. I was signal, and we had these canvas covers for our antenna heads. They cost $140 each for a couple square yards of fabric sewn together. We also had old generators that cost more to maintain than to buy new ones that actually worked and were reliable. However the bean counters decided it looks better to refurbish old equipment than buy new stuff. It wasnt uncommon to spend more fixing an old unit in a year than it was to buy a new one. But buying new equipment looks different than refurbishing old equipment on some high level persons bullet points.
But you are right. We cannot go back to the 1790's, and I dont think we should. The founders intended for the republic to be refined. That is why powers were given to the fed gov to create new laws...a supreme court to rule on case, etc. What I am concerned with is the general principles which are being discarded. Security over liberty. Shared responsibility over individuality. Big government instead of small. Debt instead of responsibility. Entitlement versus earning something.
I look at the fed gov as this. The states got together, and ratified the federal government because it made sense to have one entity do things for all the states otherwise it would be a cluster**** of states not being able to do anything. So they created a national government to do things as a whole that the states cannot do for themselves. What the states could do for themselves was supposed to be left to them. You cannot have an effective defense without a group of united states. You cannot speak for a group of states without one body speaking for them. Everything was supposed to go down to the lowest level until it stopped working. So if one state wants mass healthcare for their citizens they can do it. The states who dont will not. There is no need for the feds to get involved in this kind of crap.
The states created the fed gov, and now the fed gov grew up and is the biggest bully on the block. Until that little kid who is all pissed off, and wont take it anymore knocks out the bully he is going to keep terrorizing the neighborhood and shaking people down for their lunch money. Its like the mad scientist creating a creature in his lab, and when its finished the creature kills the scientist who made him.
The fed gov was supposed to be controlled by the states. Our senators used to come from the state legislatures. The president is elected by the electoral college not the people. Our states were a barrier between us, and the fed gov.
Our entire system has gone haywire and ass backwards from how its supposed to be.
Can you support this? I don't have any counter evidence but I am not the one making the claim
Quick search on google brought up just one little article (http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/news/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban) Many more out there. He was no friend to gun owners.
People forget the man and only remember the myth. He wasn't a bad president but he wasn't the best either, but after Carter anything he did was a thing of legend.
thopkins22
02-11-10, 00:09
Yet another vote for Medina. She's the real deal. Of course I don't see her standing a chance.
e-guns:Ron Paul's logic on earmarks makes sense to me. Would you rather him say to his constituents that not only were they robbed by the federal government, but that he wasn't even going to play the game for them in order to get a portion of it back? Or that he should let the president spend all the money in the budget instead of the legislature? I think voting against it is all that we can realistically expect from a politician...which is after all what he is(albeit a relatively libertarian/ideologically consistent politician.)
Sounds like only 100% perfection will do. Good luck with that.
That might be why the Founding Fathers opted for a Constitution that tried not too give too much power to any one person or branch, and tried to balance powers.
Be careful you don't get a "man on horseback" as the answer to your prayers.
ThirdWatcher
02-11-10, 04:16
That might be why the Founding Fathers opted for a Constitution that tried not too give too much power to any one person or branch, and tried to balance powers.
This may very well be the greatest gift our founding fathers gave us.
As far as no public education, our literacy rate was about 99% at the creation of this nation.
I'll be the first to admit not everything was done right to begin with; the issue of slavery being the most obvious example (and unfortunately they did not figure into the aforementioned 99%).
Collegefour
02-11-10, 07:19
This may very well be the greatest gift our founding fathers gave us.
As far as no public education, our literacy rate was about 99% at the creation of this nation.
I'll be the first to admit not everything was done right to begin with; the issue of slavery being the most obvious example (and unfortunately they did not figure into the aforementioned 99%).
I think you overstated the literacy at our founding. A quick Google search netted me this:
In the late 18th century to the early 19th century, America saw a rise in literacy as well as an emergence of a new popular print culture. In 1790, “approximately 85 percent of adult men in New England and 60 percent of those in Pennsylvania and the Chesapeake could read and write,” (Murrin). The literacy rate for women was also on the rise, though much lower than the male literacy rate at “about 45 percent in New England” (Murrin).
Reference
Murrin, John M. et al. Liberty, Freedom, and Power: A History of the American People. Volume I., 4th ed. pp. 252-253. (Wadsworth, 2005)
kaiservontexas
02-11-10, 08:20
Medina for the win!
ForTehNguyen
02-11-10, 08:31
screw Perry and Bailout Hutchinson
As far as nugent goes, are we really supporting a dead beat dad who was pretty close to being a pedo? If any liberal pulled the same shit as nugent we would never let it die. But people seem to idolize the guy because he likes guns and can sing.
Is that all? Have you seen this?
36 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71, repeat 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
Give up yet? Scroll down...
.
.
.
.
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
Makes Uncle Ted seem pretty tame doesn't it? :D
Is that all? Have you seen this?
Makes Uncle Ted seem pretty tame doesn't it? :D
I'm not a big fan of congress :P I'm a bigger fan of term limits.
I'm not a big fan of congress :P I'm a bigger fan of term limits.
Amen!
Nathan_Bell
02-11-10, 09:29
I'm not a big fan of congress :P I'm a bigger fan of term limits.
The biggest problem with term limits is that they push the power down a level into the permanent bureaucracies.
Eliminate the insanely Gerrymandered districts and we would have a good deal more turn over in the House, entirely too many districts were designed for a single issue candidate to win and hold forever.
Now for the Senate.
Require them to pass a 1st year grad student level test on the Constitution after every recess, and while seated in the damned Capital. No staffers taking it for them. They fail it, once, they don't get to propose legislation. They fail it twice, they get kicked out and their state is finding a new Senator.
Considering the political situation of our nation both are about equally attainable :(
***ALERT****
For those of you who wanted to vote for Medina I sure hope you listened to her on Glenn's show just a moment ago. She was asked questions about the 9/11 truthers movement etc and didn't seem to pass with flying colors with much of her interview! She seems to be more of the same in my opinion.
Quick search on google brought up just one little article (http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/news/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban) Many more out there. He was no friend to gun owners.
People forget the man and only remember the myth. He wasn't a bad president but he wasn't the best either, but after Carter anything he did was a thing of legend.
The man was nowhere near perfect. However, by the time the above link happened, he had Alzheimers. He was diagnosed in May 1994 at the Mayo clinic. Which means he had it before then. That means nothing to me. I would like to see evidence from his Presidency or thereabouts. By the end of his Presidency he was already starting to exhibit problems with his mind.
CharlieKilo
02-11-10, 10:34
If I'm not mistaken, his logic in doing such things is that if the government's going to take the money from his constituents, he'll at least do what he can to get it back in some fashion.
On target, but it goes a little beyond that.
These taxpayer dollars Ron Paul earmarked for his district WERE going to be spent, regardless. Instead of those monies being spent outside of his district, he opted to earmark them for his district.
Yet another vote for Medina. She's the real deal. Of course I don't see her standing a chance.
e-guns:Ron Paul's logic on earmarks makes sense to me. Would you rather him say to his constituents that not only were they robbed by the federal government, but that he wasn't even going to play the game for them in order to get a portion of it back? Or that he should let the president spend all the money in the budget instead of the legislature? I think voting against it is all that we can realistically expect from a politician...which is after all what he is(albeit a relatively libertarian/ideologically consistent politician.)
So it is OK for Ron Paul to request all sorts of earmarks, knowing that the budget will pass and that his one lone voice won't stop it? That is very hypocritical when you look at his rants against govt spending etc. Dressing up in 1776 clothes and making videos but then he does not even behave like he says we should?
I agree with lots of what he says and represents. However, his outspokenness and then hypocritical actions only damages the ideas in front of the populace.
On target, but it goes a little beyond that.
These taxpayer dollars Ron Paul earmarked for his district WERE going to be spent, regardless. Instead of those monies being spent outside of his district, he opted to earmark them for his district.
So it is OK to rail against all this spending and then dip your hands in the pork? It does not matter that the monies were going to be spent anyway. Principles men act according to principles. They are not hypocrites. He is no different in action than any politician. Any politician can make the same claims: they were going to spend the money anyway, so bring on the pork.
Belmont31R
02-11-10, 11:56
***ALERT****
For those of you who wanted to vote for Medina I sure hope you listened to her on Glenn's show just a moment ago. She was asked questions about the 9/11 truthers movement etc and didn't seem to pass with flying colors with much of her interview! She seems to be more of the same in my opinion.
Just played the interview.
So now I don't have a single person to vote for.
Perry: Big government, private land grabber, Gardisil injecting Perry....:rolleyes:
Hutchison: Big government, debt raiser, bank bailing out Hutchison....:mad:
Medina: Questionable truther.....:(
Another election picking the lesser of the evils...
thopkins22
02-11-10, 12:22
I agree with lots of what he says and represents. However, his outspokenness and then hypocritical actions only damages the ideas in front of the populace.
Okay, but show me one other politician who has even remotely come close to getting that message out there. He didn't have a bunch of kids support him because he's charismatic, it was because he's often the lone libertarian voice. Perfect? Of course not. But let's not call him a POS and lump him in with the rest of them.
I drive through Ron Paul's district a few times every week. To this day there are signs for him EVERYWHERE from Mexican restaurants, to veterinarian clinics, to car mechanics. These people aren't stupid...they're happy about him taking a stand(even if it's as you say and a hypocritical stand.) Who else is even touching some of the same subjects?
thopkins22
02-11-10, 12:30
She was asked questions about the 9/11 truthers movement etc and didn't seem to pass with flying colors with much of her interview! She seems to be more of the same in my opinion.
That's unfortunate, but luckily she's running for office in Texas not Washington so I don't see how it matters(other than not knowing when to shut up.) She hasn't mentioned any of that baloney up until that question. I like what she wants to do for Texas.
More of the same? Who else is talking about getting rid of property taxes and restoring gun rights to Texas? As a side note, Glenn Beck strikes me as a weasel. He's not remotely in the same league as some other conservative opinion guys...whom I don't have a lot of love for either.
ColdDeadHands
02-11-10, 12:40
Another vote for Medina.
Belmont31R
02-11-10, 12:54
That's unfortunate, but luckily she's running for office in Texas not Washington so I don't see how it matters(other than not knowing when to shut up.) She hasn't mentioned any of that baloney up until that question. I like what she wants to do for Texas.
More of the same? Who else is talking about getting rid of property taxes and restoring gun rights to Texas? As a side note, Glenn Beck strikes me as a weasel. He's not remotely in the same league as some other conservative opinion guys...whom I don't have a lot of love for either.
I do like Glenn Beck most of the time but he is not consistent in giving support to people.
After the Medina interview he said something about french kissing Perry. Perry is a private land grabber who wants mandatory Gardisil injections in girls. He also filled the state with toll roads...
That's unfortunate, but luckily she's running for office in Texas not Washington so I don't see how it matters(other than not knowing when to shut up.) She hasn't mentioned any of that baloney up until that question. I like what she wants to do for Texas.
More of the same? Who else is talking about getting rid of property taxes and restoring gun rights to Texas? As a side note, Glenn Beck strikes me as a weasel. He's not remotely in the same league as some other conservative opinion guys...whom I don't have a lot of love for either.
How does her running in Texas have anything to do with the 9/11 truthers? I think you're mistaken for the birthers maybe? If she believes the United States government caused 9/11 then there are serious issues with that. You may think he's a weasel, but he' the only one who is telling it like it is in my opinion. Name another talk show radio host that hates both sides equally as much and is more ademate about telling the truth to the best of his ability? This is not to say that he's correct 100% of the time either, but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.
Yes, more of the same. She's just another politician who is willing to play the game to get elected in my mind. This is the whole problem with politics in general. You cannot even get into the game without having dirt on you. No one will trust you unless you do. I don't live in your state, but my family has been friends with numerous politicians inlcuding Boehner from our state and this is how the game is played. I personally don't agree with it. This is not how the founders wanted things to be run. To me it's THE biggest reason why we have so many problems in this country and the starting point of all the corruption and it leading on down the line of issues.
I'm not trying to talk you out of voting for her. I'm just here to deliver to you and all of the other folks on this board what I heard and let you as grown ups to make your own decision, but the facts are the facts and what I heard cannot be refuted. Again to me she sounds pretty fishy in certain areas. This to me says she won't say what she really believes, but AGAIN is playing the game.
[QUOTE=Belmont31R;569639]I do like Glenn Beck most of the time but he is not consistent in giving support to people.[QUOTE]
His job is not to give suport for any candidate. In fact he refuses to support or endorse any of them. Not even Palin etc. If you listened to the girl who called in about 9:30 or so it gave the perfect example. She wanted him to edorse someone or be the one to tell everyone to vote for this person and that person. He let her know that it's her decision and he's not on the air to tell people who to vote for, but rather to help educate them properly so they can do the research etc on their own on the subject and make their own choices!
thopkins22
02-11-10, 13:29
This to me says she won't say what she really believes, but AGAIN is playing the game.
I think if she was playing the game she would have acted appalled at even hearing the question. Instead, it sounds like questionable understanding of foreign policy...something that I don't believe is all that important for a governor.
Belmont31R
02-11-10, 13:38
Medina statement RE Glenn Beck interview...
by Debra Medina on Feb 11, 2010
I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.
The question surprised me because it's not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.
The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it's Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that's the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be.
rickrock305
02-11-10, 14:12
Is that all? Have you seen this?
Makes Uncle Ted seem pretty tame doesn't it? :D
interesting, when i posted this you guys jumped all down my throat.
interesting, when i posted this you guys jumped all down my throat.
You posted about Congress being a bunch of criminals and thugs and we jumped down your throat? I highly doubt it but post the link so we can see for ourselves.
rickrock305
02-11-10, 14:21
yep, sure did. i did a search for it but couldn't find it.
as far as this thread...glad to see folks waking up to what a retard Palin is.
yep, sure did. i did a search for it but couldn't find it.
as far as this thread...glad to see folks waking up to what a retard Palin is.
Again I highly doubt it. You won't find a single person on this forum that will defend Congress.
So?
Why does he request the earmark in the first place? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-C-Y
Not really. "If you want to push this through, I'm going to try to take care of my district that you keep unfairly taking money from. I don't want this to go through, though, and will vote against it." That's not hypocrisy at all.
I do agree with Belmont about the Tea Party. Since I never liked Palin my opinion on that doesn't change.
-B
Submariner
02-11-10, 14:36
Again I highly doubt it. You won't find a single person on this forum that will defend Congress.
Do you mean that there is not ONE tax feeder on this forum who depends for his existence on the largess of Congress?
no offense but I saw the OPs frustration coming ages ago. There will never be a political movement in this country on the left or the right that will happen successfully if any form of politics is involved.
The only thing that will work is spontaneous action, but as a nation we have lost the balls to do anything without a committee behind us, and hours of placating discussion.
Not really. "If you want to push this through, I'm going to try to take care of my district that you keep unfairly taking money from. I don't want this to go through, though, and will vote against it." That's not hypocrisy at all.
It is more like
do as I say, not as I do.
"I don't believe in all these taxes and earmarks but sign me up anyway"
It is hypocrisy. He wants to "try and take care" of his district, just like all the other 434 congress people and 100 Senators. He knows it will pass so he can make the hypocritical vote against it knowing his earmarks are safe.
Look, I like Ron Paul but I wish he would stop claiming to be the principled one because he is not. If he wants to be the principled one then he needs to act it. He should not get near earmarks with a 100 foot pole if he wants to be the principled one.
I do agree with Belmont about the Tea Party. Since I never liked Palin my opinion on that doesn't change.
-B
Do you mean that there is not ONE tax feeder on this forum who depends for his existence on the largess of Congress?
Well, maybe you.
I said "defend" so I'm not sure where you came up with "depends" but this isn't the first time you've gone completely off track.
My original statement to RickRock still stands; nobody on this forum is going to defend Congress. Try and find one that thinks Congress is doing a good job, thinks that Congress is made up of a bunch of honest individuals, has the country in mind when making decisions and has the mindset that they work for the people of this nation. Sure you can find one or two good members but by and large Congress is made up of thugs, bullies and criminals.
I'm sure you'll disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.
tracker722
02-11-10, 16:13
*****
I think if she was playing the game she would have acted appalled at even hearing the question. Instead, it sounds like questionable understanding of foreign policy...something that I don't believe is all that important for a governor.
I think the opposite. She gave a very vague answer on the radio which is playing the game. Speaking in generalities and not speaking your mind like you would if you weren't on the tv/radio and by yourself is playing the game. They ALL play this game. If you or anyone for that matter doesn't believe it then that would be asinine.
This has nothing to do with foreign policy or the understanding of it. It had to do with her belief of the US government being behind 9/11 or not. That to me would be a domestic issue. Whether or not it's a domestic/foreign or whatever you want to call it is irrelivant in my mind. To me it's more about her answer or on today's radio program or lack thereof. Her answer made it seem that she thought it possible to whether or not the government actually had a hand in the attacks of allowing them to happen or being behind them.
Her answer better be important to you as a Governor. It tells you a LOT about who she is and what she believes. She was caught really off guard with the question that's for sure. As you have seen Belmont quoted her response today online in print. In print! It's easy for anyone to create plausible deniablility on paper or make anyone think what is written is what they think when in reality it may or may not be what they actually believe.
In the end ALL politicians are corrupt to an extent. Even the founding fathers were. The game has been ever evolving for over 200 years now. I've heard drunk members of the House and Senate talking amongst themselves about things before at parties around the Holidays etc. You then hear their real opinions, but most of the time they're not PC about things behind closed doors and often completely against what they say in the public arena. It's a popularity contest and rule number one is to get reelected at all costs. This shouldn't be any surprise I hope.
I have nothing personally against her. I just thought it odd at what she said. In the end no matter what side of the aisle they represent it's still a matter of voting for which pile of shit smells the least in my mind. Unfortunatley I see it continuing this way for a long long time.
Small government, free enterprise, low spending/fiscal responsibility, and a strong belief in personal liberty & the Constitution.
Clinton was more fiscally conservative than Bush.
Agree on the first part.
Re the second, here you can see the budget deficits as a % of GDP the different Presidents ran. That measure makes W more fiscally conservative than Reagan anyway. Clinton had an unnatural advantage of earning his deficit bones with the dramatic cuts in Defense.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy10&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s
The biggest problem with term limits is that they push the power down a level into the permanent bureaucracies.
Eliminate the insanely Gerrymandered districts and we would have a good deal more turn over in the House, entirely too many districts were designed for a single issue candidate to win and hold forever.
Now for the Senate.
Require them to pass a 1st year grad student level test on the Constitution after every recess, and while seated in the damned Capital. No staffers taking it for them. They fail it, once, they don't get to propose legislation. They fail it twice, they get kicked out and their state is finding a new Senator.
Considering the political situation of our nation both are about equally attainable :(
Every government position that has an administrator capacity should have term limits be it state or federal.
The man was nowhere near perfect. However, by the time the above link happened, he had Alzheimers. He was diagnosed in May 1994 at the Mayo clinic. Which means he had it before then. That means nothing to me. I would like to see evidence from his Presidency or thereabouts. By the end of his Presidency he was already starting to exhibit problems with his mind.
Did he have Alzheimer's in 67? If so that would explain the Mulford Act he signed as governor... my mistake, that was to stop the black panther's :rolleyes:
Aren't all gun laws to stop criminals by disarming law abiding peoples. When has one been made that reads simply to stop ownership of firearms?
Belmont31R
02-11-10, 20:59
Agree on the first part.
Re the second, here you can see the budget deficits as a % of GDP the different Presidents ran. That measure makes W more fiscally conservative than Reagan anyway. Clinton had an unnatural advantage of earning his deficit bones with the dramatic cuts in Defense.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy10&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s
So Obama has the most spending only 2nd to the world wars?
Did he have Alzheimer's in 67? If so that would explain the Mulford Act he signed as governor... my mistake, that was to stop the black panther's :rolleyes:
Aren't all gun laws to stop criminals by disarming law abiding peoples. When has one been made that reads simply to stop ownership of firearms?
Reagan evolved over time. He started out as a liberal, Democrat I believe. He gradually became a conservative. 67 was his first year as Governor. He later said something to the effect that he did lots of stupid things as Governor that he would not have done had he had more experience. I do not know if the Mulford Act would be included in that. However, that had nothing to do with "assault" type weapons. You claimed he did not support private ownership of such. Show me something substantive on that from his time as President and before he had Alzheimers.
I have read, but at the moment do not have a link, that he was willing to veto the FOPA 86 due to the MG ban but was persuaded not to.
Reagan evolved over time. He started out as a liberal, Democrat I believe. He gradually became a conservative. 67 was his first year as Governor. He later said something to the effect that he did lots of stupid things as Governor that he would not have done had he had more experience. I do not know if the Mulford Act would be included in that. However, that had nothing to do with "assault" type weapons. You claimed he did not support private ownership of such. Show me something substantive on that from his time as President and before he had Alzheimers.
I have read, but at the moment do not have a link, that he was willing to veto the FOPA 86 due to the MG ban but was persuaded not to.
The only things that come to mind during his time are the 86-89 laws. And he signed both, and you can spin either any way you want, both where anti-gun ownership.
And had the 87 brady handgun violence prevention act made it to his desk in 87, going off his track record I would put my money on it becoming law.
You call Ron Paul hypocritical for his shrimp funding, but Reagan is pro gun for banning firearms?
'86 did far more for gun owners than it did negatively. The '86 machine gun ban is unconstitutional, for sure, but the Volkmer-McClure act allowed you to buy ammo without having to register for it, and it eased paperwork restrictions a lot.
Bush Sr. signed the executive order that banned importation of AK's, HK's, FN's, etc., not Reagan, who was out in '88.
Regarding Palin she has shown her colors endorsing the RINO's. The more I hear her speak the more stupid she sounds to me.
Thoughts and opinions?
Ha! You are just now learning what I have known for years. I'm from Alaska and I have had the unfortunate privilege to know her. She is a hack. She is unintelligent, and will not hold up when she runs in 2012. She is a populist and doesn't really seem to have a personal stance on anything except taking care of her own interests.
She will seriously hurt the Republicans in 2012, just like Ross Perot hurt us in '92. She will split the conservative vote and Obama will have another 4 years in the White House because of it.
Don't get me wrong I like the idea of a gun loving conservative woman running for office. But in my opinion Palin is not up for the task; she isn't smart enough, she is corrupt (she is ethically challenged), and when the going gets tough she will quit (just like she did here in Alaska).
I think the more people get to know her, the more people will not like her.
'86 did far more for gun owners than it did negatively. The '86 machine gun ban is unconstitutional, for sure, but the Volkmer-McClure act allowed you to buy ammo without having to register for it, and it eased paperwork restrictions a lot.
Bush Sr. signed the executive order that banned importation of AK's, HK's, FN's, etc., not Reagan, who was out in '88.
Doh, time frame was off. I stand corrected.
However, he still could had vetoed the bill in 86.
The only things that come to mind during his time are the 86-89 laws. And he signed both, and you can spin either any way you want, both where anti-gun ownership.
And had the 87 brady handgun violence prevention act made it to his desk in 87, going off his track record I would put my money on it becoming law.
You call Ron Paul hypocritical for his shrimp funding, but Reagan is pro gun for banning firearms?
As has been pointed out, Bush Sr is to blame for the 89 import ban, not Reagan.
And the FOPA 86 is a PRO GUN law that greatly made things better. It had some negative amendments added to it, unfortunately, but overall it was PRO GUN. And as I said, the claim has been made by people who were in on the process that Reagan did want to veto it but was convinced not to because it was for the most part overwhelmingly a pro gun law.
As to the complaint about my complaint about Ron Paul compared to my support of Reagan. Reagan did not campaign, proclaim, or otherwise go out in public as a huge supporter of gun rights. (I am not saying he was anti-gun, I am saying he did not make it his cause or reason for being). Ron Paul has made great efforts at making government spending, earmarks, and constitutional govt his cause. Yet he sponsors pork spending and earmarks. He knows it will pass so he can then vote against it safe in the knowledge that his pork is safe. He talks the talk but when the rubber meets the road he does not walk the walk -- at least in a serious way.
RP could easily sponsor an amendment to REDUCE the spending equal to what his earmarks would have been if he were serious. The excuse that they are going to spend the money anyway so I might as well get mine is a hypocritical excuse.
Ha! You are just now learning what I have known for years. I'm from Alaska and I have had the unfortunate privilege to know her. She is a hack. She is unintelligent, and will not hold up when she runs in 2012. She is a populist and doesn't really seem to have a personal stance on anything except taking care of her own interests.
She will seriously hurt the Republicans in 2012, just like Ross Perot hurt us in '92. She will split the conservative vote and Obama will have another 4 years in the White House because of it.
Don't get me wrong I like the idea of a gun loving conservative woman running for office. But in my opinion Palin is not up for the task; she isn't smart enough, she is corrupt (she is ethically challenged), and when the going gets tough she will quit (just like she did here in Alaska).
I think the more people get to know her, the more people will not like her.
Palin's role is as a fund raiser, conservative whip, etc. Not as a candidate.
It is more like
do as I say, not as I do.
"I don't believe in all these taxes and earmarks but sign me up anyway"
It is hypocrisy. He wants to "try and take care" of his district, just like all the other 434 congress people and 100 Senators. He knows it will pass so he can make the hypocritical vote against it knowing his earmarks are safe.
Look, I like Ron Paul but I wish he would stop claiming to be the principled one because he is not. If he wants to be the principled one then he needs to act it. He should not get near earmarks with a 100 foot pole if he wants to be the principled one.
Let's try to look at it as simply as possible. Money was stolen from his district, ultimately at the point of a gun by taxfeeders. It's only right that he try and recover stolen property, yet the appropriations bill itself is unconstitutional and in good conscience he cannot vote for it. I fail to see the hypocrisy. The sad part of the whole mess is that Washington has the money in the first place. Ultimately he (Ron Paul) would not like Washington to get there hands on it in the first place, and fights to to try and make this a reality, but until then, this is the best solution possible while still not violating his principles. Perhaps you have a better solution?
Wow, the spin is getting pretty heavy.
His "solution" to taxes is to put in earmarks?
My solution for him is to sponsor amendments reducing the spending in the appropriations bill equal to what he would have requested in earmarks.
Or something like that. Not support the stealing by promoting pork in his district.
However you want to spin it, he is supporting pork in his district.
Listen, I like RP in terms of his philosophy. But I don't like his "do as I say, not as I do" behavior -- especially since he makes such a big deal about his supporting the Constitution. You can believe your spin if you want but since he carries the banner of living by the Constitution he needs to be held to a higher standard than he lives up to.
Let's try to look at it as simply as possible. Money was stolen from his district, ultimately at the point of a gun by taxfeeders. It's only right that he try and recover stolen property, yet the appropriations bill itself is unconstitutional and in good conscience he cannot vote for it.
He is not trying to recover stolen property. The people it was stolen from are not getting it back. It is being redirected to other special interests in his district. It is redistribution of wealth.
I agree that the money was stolen from the taxpayers at threat of violence by the govt. His earmarks have nothing to do with getting it back.
Nathan_Bell
02-12-10, 08:52
Every government position that has an administrator capacity should have term limits be it state or federal.
Then what you get is a bureaucrat who is one layer down, and protected by employment laws, effectively running things and working to maintain their little empire.
Not saying leave the scum elevating system we have now, but term limits alone will make the juggernaut that is the Fed gov even less answerable to the people.
Do people actually think their going to find the perfect candidate for 2012?
If were waiting for a candidate to show up that going to address everyone's concerns, then we are all going to be pretty disappointed.
Belmont31R
02-13-10, 13:11
Do people actually think their going to find the perfect candidate for 2012?
If were waiting for a candidate to show up that going to address everyone's concerns, then we are all going to be pretty disappointed.
Im looking for a candidate who wants to reduce the size and scope of government, reduce taxes (especially our business tax rates which are very high), respect state's and people's rights, protect the country without trampling our rights, and work on reducing the debt.
Extra stuff is just fluff. I think the country is headed towards a total control government. We're bad off as it is. I'd vote for a democrat who can actually balance a budget without raising taxes. I respect Bill Clinton for the fact he signed off on budgets that were quite fiscally sound compared to many other recent presidents. Granted he was dealing with a republican congress but he still did it.
I think al qaeda is not as much of a threat to national security as the out of control spending is. We have over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities we OWE in the future with no way to pay for it. They can't even spend as much or less than they take in. This simply is not sustainable. We have public sector pensions the states owe who knows how many hundreds of billions to in the future with no way to pay for it. Everyone has been promised the world and expect it. We need to seriously look at reducing social security benefits, medicare/medicaid, public pensions, public workforce size, cut programs that the states should be doing (education & housing). By the end of Obama's first term we are looking at a debt higher than GDP. We are promising european style benefits which do not work in the long term. They can't even pay for it over there and their taxes are way higher than ours. People are demanding free benefits from the gov (health care) that is going to dump a whole new era of liability on the gov with no long term plan to pay for it. Our government is promising they are going to provide all these things, and they are trying to do it without raising taxes. No one wants to be 'that guy' who raised taxes and put reality into the mix. So we end up with far lower taxes than reality needs to pay for what has been promised.
We are close to the failure point. Look at several of the states on the brink of failure. We either get someone in office who will take it head on or nothing is going to turn us around. Even if we got another Bush type in office it wouldn't help anything. It would make things worse. Reverse course....not go from full speed to half.
Im looking for a candidate who wants to reduce the size and scope of government, reduce taxes (especially our business tax rates which are very high), respect state's and people's rights, protect the country without trampling our rights, and work on reducing the debt.
Extra stuff is just fluff. I think the country is headed towards a total control government. We're bad off as it is. I'd vote for a democrat who can actually balance a budget without raising taxes. I respect Bill Clinton for the fact he signed off on budgets that were quite fiscally sound compared to many other recent presidents. Granted he was dealing with a republican congress but he still did it.
I think al qaeda is not as much of a threat to national security as the out of control spending is. We have over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities we OWE in the future with no way to pay for it. They can't even spend as much or less than they take in. This simply is not sustainable. We have public sector pensions the states owe who knows how many hundreds of billions to in the future with no way to pay for it. Everyone has been promised the world and expect it. We need to seriously look at reducing social security benefits, medicare/medicaid, public pensions, public workforce size, cut programs that the states should be doing (education & housing). By the end of Obama's first term we are looking at a debt higher than GDP. We are promising european style benefits which do not work in the long term. They can't even pay for it over there and their taxes are way higher than ours. People are demanding free benefits from the gov (health care) that is going to dump a whole new era of liability on the gov with no long term plan to pay for it. Our government is promising they are going to provide all these things, and they are trying to do it without raising taxes. No one wants to be 'that guy' who raised taxes and put reality into the mix. So we end up with far lower taxes than reality needs to pay for what has been promised.
We are close to the failure point. Look at several of the states on the brink of failure. We either get someone in office who will take it head on or nothing is going to turn us around. Even if we got another Bush type in office it wouldn't help anything. It would make things worse. Reverse course....not go from full speed to half.
I couldn't agree more, early primaries seem to show alot of people feel the same way. Lets hope this trend continues on long enough to get these progressive assholes out of office.
QuickStrike
02-14-10, 00:38
Regarding Palin she has shown her colors endorsing the RINO's. The more I hear her speak the more stupid she sounds to me. I would vote for her but we can do a lot better. She gives, practically without any thought, ammo for the liberals to use against her that make her look stupid and idiotic.
Ha, I agree.
Surprised nobody accused you of voting for Obama. :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.