View Full Version : The denegration of Texas starts...
Belmont31R
08-13-11, 02:33
Because of Perry possibly running, the liberal elites in NYC have to start in on what a shitty place it is down here....but...
Without Texas Obongo's job numbers would be WAY WORSE than they are now. Texas has created more jobs than any other state by far. Perry has been governor starting on his THIRD term now.
Chris Matthews rant on Texas and Perry: http://youtu.be/MG4yU4wp94g
But the presiding governor of that state is a threat to the man child who gives ole Chrissy a thrill up his leg...so gotta start the degeneration early and often. I can't wait for the argument of "the last time we had a president from Texas look at what happened", and other straw man arguments.
I have my faults with Perry but its hard to argue with results, and the results are this state has BY FAR created more jobs than any other in the last 2-3 years, and :
That figure traces to research by the Federal Reserve branch in Dallas that determined that between June 2009, the month marked by the National Bureau of Economic Research as the end of the recession, and April 2011, Texas accounted for 37 percent of net job gains nationally, by one calculation, or 45 percent, by another.
With a country eager to get back to low unemployment how could Obama ever defend against that line?
Moose-Knuckle
08-13-11, 03:07
Rick Perry's Texas jobs boom: The whole story
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/12/news/economy/perry_texas_jobs/
LOL, I love the linked video in the article on gun sales and Texans! ;)
SeriousStudent
08-13-11, 08:46
Oh wait, it will get much, much worse, as we all know.
They will bring up teacher salaries, high school graduation rates, anything they can think of to create misleading statistics.
I'm not a blind follower of Perry. I'm not thrilled at all about his lip service regarding illegal immigration. But he's definitely a candidate to take seriously. He's never lost an election.
I have my faults with Perry but its hard to argue with results, and the results are this state has BY FAR created more jobs than any other in the last 2-3 years, and...
Let's look at more results...
Perry is coming up in talk circles more and more often as of late. In my opinion he definitely fits the label of RINO. Just for fun did you know he used to be a Democrat? Did you also know he was Al Gore's campaign manager? More fun facts about Perry:
In 2000, when Perry first became governor, total spending by the state of Texas was $49 billion. At the end of 2010, it was $90 billion. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/first-look-rick-perry.html
Texas debt has more than doubled under Perry. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/04/bill-white/white-says-texas-debt-has-doubled-under-perry/
Perry is for the NAFTA Super Highway. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43433
Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while in office, contrary to his own statements on the matter. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/nov/01/rick-perry/gov-rick-perry-says-he-has-track-record-not-raisin/
montanadave
08-13-11, 10:06
I don't see the need to bash the shit out of Texas or its citizenry, but if folks want to out Rick Perry for being a pandering POS that suits me just fine.
Belmont31R
08-13-11, 12:29
Let's look at more results...
Perry is coming up in talk circles more and more often as of late. In my opinion he definitely fits the label of RINO. Just for fun did you know he used to be a Democrat? Did you also know he was Al Gore's campaign manager? More fun facts about Perry:
In 2000, when Perry first became governor, total spending by the state of Texas was $49 billion. At the end of 2010, it was $90 billion. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/first-look-rick-perry.html
Texas debt has more than doubled under Perry. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/04/bill-white/white-says-texas-debt-has-doubled-under-perry/
Perry is for the NAFTA Super Highway. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43433
Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while in office, contrary to his own statements on the matter. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/nov/01/rick-perry/gov-rick-perry-says-he-has-track-record-not-raisin/
I know he's not my dream candidate. Im just saying he is one I think would stand a good chance of beating Obama. He is on his THIRD term as our gov so yes there is going to be stupid ideas he has had along the way, and plenty of mistakes. At least he has a record other than "present", and served out a full term at something before campaigning for the next spot.
Still its hard to argue with the success this state has had, and I think part of the spending jump has to do with the huge influx of people we've had here.
I read the article about the debt, and most of the "doubling of the debt" seems to not be anything Perry did personally. It says he's one of FOUR who overseas bond transactions, voters approved one of the major bond issuance, and the general debt has only increased 6%. I think Texas is a bit different in government such as schools have taxing authority, and the state legislature only meets every two years. There was talk of debt last year because the expenditures the previous two years were based on projected incomes. Most of this was fixed this year as it was a meeting year. Overall we have a low cost of living, low DMV fees, my insurance went down when I moved here, no state income tax, property taxes are not too bad. Hard to complain about it.
ETA:
Also there is a lot of hoopla about the trans texas corridor. Im not sure why people are so against free trade with other nations, and eminent domain for public benefit. Without eminent domain we would not have an interstate system to begin with. Its not like people are left out on their asses. They get fair market value for the land. Although I don't like illegal aliens or the cartels in MX they have always been a trading partner with us. Ive talked to people who lived by the border, and it wasn't uncommon to go back and forth multiple times a day with with no checkpoints or whatnot. You could walk down the street and not even realize you were in MX. Then the Feds came in and walled off all these areas forever splitting what used to be positive relations between communities. Hell my mom used to take us to MX by herself, and we'd walk around. Ive been there many times.
Granted I think the US has been getting the short end of the stick for a long time when it comes to trade I don't see anything wrong with welcoming MX as a trading partner, and we should be helping them with their cartel problem. Thats one reason we need the mil down there...but I think most of that can be fixed with our drug, employment, and criminal laws along with helping MX get their domestic situation under control. We had help as a nation from others during our founding, and probably would have lost with out that help.
variablebinary
08-13-11, 13:10
We aren't even half way the primaries yet.
The liberal press is just shifting targets because Perry with launch with a lot of momentum.
The press wants to destroy whoever they believe is the front runner. This is not about journalism, or informing the people. This is character assassination because his accomplishments will never get as much press as aspects of him that inflame liberals.
Belmont31R
08-13-11, 14:33
Perry running -----------> http://youtu.be/MgaoQeBJLzw
I know he's not my dream candidate. Im just saying he is one I think would stand a good chance of beating Obama.
This is really all the country should be concerned with...i honestly don't care who beats Obama.
We'll see how the others step up in the coming months but agree he looks to be the best choice today.
Any thoughts on the left side primaries?? I think that is going to be entertaining watching it unfold.
thopkins22
08-13-11, 15:56
Texas isn't excelling and prosperous because of Rick Perry...we're excelling in spite of him.
Almost everything that is in place to make Texas a business friendly state and a great place to live were already in existence long before Perry.
No income tax, a booming oil industry, agriculture, and a low cost of living already existed here. He has simply managed by the skin of his teeth to not blow it.
With that said I also tend to think that he's preferable to every other candidate in the race with the exception of Rep. Paul(who is unlikely to win the primary much less general election.) I think his success will hinge on how far up social conservative creek he decides to take his rhetoric. If he can come off as socially moderate then he could be a real winner.
With that said I also tend to think that he's preferable to every other candidate in the race with the exception of Rep. Paul(who is unlikely to win the primary much less general election.) I think his success will hinge on how far up social conservative creek he decides to take his rhetoric. If he can come off as socially moderate then he could be a real winner.
Isn't it sad that we have to think like this because 90% of the voting public are ding-dongs and vote with their feelings??
The evidence of Obama was shared with the masses for all to know his true colors...the EVIDENCE was there, the HISTORY was there. Tigers don't 'change':rolleyes: their colors and it was bought hook, line and sinker.
How a great orator can overcome the facts of their true political agenda tells me the voting public is stupid and too emotional.
There are a number of reasons Perry is an idiot. But the economy in Texas is not one of them.
Now the education problems, his "day of prayer"' those are all reasons.
thopkins22
08-13-11, 19:09
There are a number of reasons Perry is an idiot. But the economy in Texas is not one of them.
Now the education problems, his "day of prayer"' those are all reasons.
http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr130/thopkins22/18bfcf2f.jpg
As the drought continues, you can find thousands of trees across the city marked like the one above. As these already established trees become weakened from the drought, all sorts of pests and parasites begin to kill them and spread to the rest of the trees.
I'm not a tree-hugger, and I'm not one who usually does a lot of praying...but the situation is pretty damned sad. Surely he didn't think praying in a big group was going to help, but perhaps it gave some people a sense of community and comfort. I give him a pass...and the public figure praying thing usually creeps me out.
Belmont31R
08-13-11, 19:23
Im confused as to what the issue with the prayer thing is. Its not like people were forced to go.
with the exception of Rep. Paul(who is unlikely to win the primary much less general election.)
I think Paul would stand a better chance in the general election than the primary
In 2000, when Perry first became governor, total spending by the state of Texas was $49 billion. At the end of 2010, it was $90 billion. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/first-look-rick-perry.html
Texas debt has more than doubled under Perry. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/04/bill-white/white-says-texas-debt-has-doubled-under-perry/
Perry is for the NAFTA Super Highway. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43433
Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while in office, contrary to his own statements on the matter. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/nov/01/rick-perry/gov-rick-perry-says-he-has-track-record-not-raisin/
These are my concerns with him as well. Especially the Highway bit.
Belmont31R
08-13-11, 19:36
Between 2000 and now there has been a 25-30% increase in population not even counting who knows how many illegals.
So going from 49-90 billion isn't all that bad as it does when you don't look at the big picture, and part of that 90 billion was stimulus funds Obama sent us. There have also been things like MANDATED spending on things since 2000 like NCLB and Medicare expenditures, ect.
By far the biggest 2 things in our state budget is health and human services and education both of which are mandated by the Feds. The next biggest thing, IIRC, was stimulus which was 13% of the budget. So if you lop off 13% right off the top its pretty close to our population increase.
Im confused as to what the issue with the prayer thing is. Its not like people were forced to go.
It is theater just like the TSA and even less effective.
On top of that he issues a statement as governor asking for people to pray. I have an issue with that. About the only thing that really shocked me about it though is that he didn't try to use taxpayer money.
I don't care what religion a person is. But I am sick and tired of elected officials flaunting it and trying to shove it down everyone's throat. It is one of the reasons I can't support Perry or Bachmann. They seem to forget that a lot of Americans (And even Republicans) aren't fundamentalist Christians.
4x4twenty6
08-13-11, 21:53
I think the idea of taking money from us, just to give it back to us to spend is ****ing retarded. That proves that there is a problem with our tax situation.
The wasteful government programs need to go too.
It also is sad that we have to vote for someone based on whether they are going to win and not because they are the best for the job.
Also have to consider the rest of congress and their influence on the president and laws that are passed.
Who cares if Perry likes to pray in public. Obama is a ****ing muslim.
He shouldnt have to hide his religion. Unless that religion is one that thinks we are infidels, then he would have to hide it.
Heavy Metal
08-13-11, 21:57
I don't see the need to bash the shit out of Texas or its citizenry, but if folks want to out Rick Perry for being a pandering POS that suits me just fine.
It would be nice after 4 years of looking the other way, the media would first out Obama as a pandering POS.
I think the hypocracy is simply stunning.
Belmont31R
08-13-11, 22:00
It is theater just like the TSA and even less effective.
On top of that he issues a statement as governor asking for people to pray. I have an issue with that. About the only thing that really shocked me about it though is that he didn't try to use taxpayer money.
I don't care what religion a person is. But I am sick and tired of elected officials flaunting it and trying to shove it down everyone's throat. It is one of the reasons I can't support Perry or Bachmann. They seem to forget that a lot of Americans (And even Republicans) aren't fundamentalist Christians.
Im not christian but don't have a problem with it. Down here religion is important. There are HUGE churches all over the place. I don't really think an elected leader has to be devoid of religion the entire time they are in office, and since most here are religious he's unlikely to offend but a handful. Asking people to pray doesn't seem like a big deal, and they used to hold church service inside the US capital building in DC. I just accept that its a big part of the founding of our country, and live and let live. When they start rounding me up for mandatory church on Sundays Ill have a problem...or how they don't allow beer sales until noon on Sundays.
Remember you have the freedom to religion not from religion.
Perry's recent emphasis on prayer is to lock up the religious right. Although they represent a small fraction of the GOP, they are prolific donors. Perry is entering this race late and will need to focus on this constituancy to raise money. His appeal to the religious right is also an indirect attack Romney's exposed Morman flank. It also plays into his candidacy announcement in the Bible Belt of SC. I have not doubt that he is Christian, but the public displays are all part of political triangulating. They all do it (if they're smart) and it does not bother me one bit.
lloydkristmas
08-14-11, 01:06
Perry isnt great, but he is exactly what we need to kick Obama the hell out of Washington.
As for him being a former Democrat, look into the history of Texas politics. ALL politicians used to be democrats in Texas, that's just how it worked. Elections were historically D vs D. Just like the Northern states used to be "Republican", now the roles are reversed.
I don't like the Trans-Texas Corridor/Highway thing, but I have to give Perry credit in that once he realized it didnt have the support of Texans, he ditched the idea. He didnt continue to cram it down our throats regardless of waning public opinion, a la Obamacare.
As for his Christian beliefs, I'm fine with that, I just wish he was a little more subtle. I have a feeling he will easily secure the religious right, but a little more subtlety in that department might earn him a few more moderate voters who like his economic ideals.
Again, not the Reagan-esque candidate that this country needs right now, but he's a conservative, he's a gun owner, and he's NOT Obama. Oh and he's certainly got a better chance than nutty-ass Ron Paul.
variablebinary
08-14-11, 01:28
Before anyone gets hot and sweaty over Perry, keep in mind that the king makers in Europe, the banking cartels and leaders of globalist corporations have already sunk their claws into him.
Rick Perry is a Bilderberger, which will not be good for freedom, or Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jfQrb4wAE
Now compare that with Ron Paul, who really is the last man standing, and this nation's best hope to fight back globalists and banking cartels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plo-1rLZ3Jo&feature=related
Anyone ever heard of the Logan Act...
And for people that have never heard of the Bilderberg group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDUMEEl_ajM
Moose-Knuckle
08-14-11, 02:49
THIS. . .
Let's look at more results...
Perry is coming up in talk circles more and more often as of late. In my opinion he definitely fits the label of RINO. Just for fun did you know he used to be a Democrat? Did you also know he was Al Gore's campaign manager? More fun facts about Perry:
In 2000, when Perry first became governor, total spending by the state of Texas was $49 billion. At the end of 2010, it was $90 billion. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/first-look-rick-perry.html
Texas debt has more than doubled under Perry. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/04/bill-white/white-says-texas-debt-has-doubled-under-perry/
Perry is for the NAFTA Super Highway. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43433
Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while in office, contrary to his own statements on the matter. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/nov/01/rick-perry/gov-rick-perry-says-he-has-track-record-not-raisin/
AND ESPECIALLY THIS. . .
Before anyone gets hot and sweaty over Perry, keep in mind that the king makers in Europe, the banking cartels and leaders of globalist corporations have already sunk their claws into him.
Rick Perry is a Bilderberger, which will not be good for freedom, or Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jfQrb4wAE
Now compare that with Ron Paul, who really is the last man standing, and this nation's best hope to fight back globalists and banking cartels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plo-1...eature=related
Anyone ever heard of the Logan Act...
And for people that have never heard of the Bilderberg group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDUMEEl_ajM
. . . is why I will once again vote for Ron Paul.
This dosen't help either. . .
Rick Perry Is Leasing Our Roads to Foreign Companies
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/royse-city-tx/TTB9LLG95A65IV59T
I will not vote for Perry. Sad to think this is the great conservative hope. :(
lloydkristmas
08-14-11, 14:35
I will not vote for Perry. Sad to think this is the great conservative hope. :(
Then you might as well vote for Obama. Ron Paul, unfortunately enough, cannot and will not win.
Perry is far from the ideal candidate, but we have to get Obama the hell out of Washington, and Perry might just be the ticket to doing just that.
Then you might as well vote for Obama. Ron Paul, unfortunately enough, cannot and will not win.
Only because there are too many people like you, who vote out of dislike and not for who they want. The idea of voting only for the lesser of two evils is what got us here incrementally and allowed someone like Obama to make huge jumps. I talk to a lot of people who like some but wont vote for them because they don't want to "waste their vote". Well if you don't vote for who you want guess what, you are wasting your vote.
Thomas M-4
08-14-11, 16:16
Only because there are too many people like you, who vote out of dislike and not for who they want. The idea of voting only for the lesser of two evils is what got us here incrementally and allowed someone like Obama to make huge jumps. I talk to a lot of people who like some but wont vote for them because they don't want to "waste their vote". Well if you don't vote for who you want guess what, you are wasting your vote.
And voting for some one that was unelectable Ross Perot comes to mind got us, Bill Clinton. With holding your vote just because it wasn't your dream candidate McCain got us Obama. If your candidate of choice didn't win the primaries then you need to suck it up and vote for your party our system is a Two party system.
And voting for some one that was unelectable Ross Perot comes to mind got us, Bill Clinton. With holding your vote just because it wasn't your dream candidate McCain got us Obama. If your candidate of choice didn't win the primaries then you need to suck it up and vote for your party our system is a Two party system.
And Bush senior would have been much better than Clinton? Marginally at best. It is indeed a two party system, which is a big part of the problem since they know you have no one else, but it doesn't have to be. There have been party changes in our history. As far as McCain and Obama, I don't think McCain would have done any better and then the Republicans would then be getting the blame. McCain is a liberal ****tard that epitomizes R.I.N.O. . I have great respect for him personally and for what he did for our nation, but politically he is not all that far from Obama
Thomas M-4
08-14-11, 16:51
And Bush senior would have been much better than Clinton? Marginaly at best. It is indeed a two party system, which is a big part of the problem, but it doesn't have to be. There have been party changes in our history. As far as McCain and Obama, I don't think McCain would have done any better and then the Republicans would then be getting the blame. McCain is a liberal ****tard that epitomizes R.I.N.O. . I have great respect for him personally and for what he did for our nation, but politicaly he is not all that far from Obama
See you are not getting it. McCain was not my first choice for President neither but he still got my vote. And I don't see how you can say that McCain and Obama president's wouldn't be any different with a straight face. Yea it wouldn't be what you or I would like to see. If marginally better is the only choice then you need to make that choice. If you want better candidate's then we need to change the party and stop trying to look for a silver bullet to fix everything.
We didn't get here overnight and we are not going too be able to fix it overnight.
variablebinary
08-14-11, 17:00
I don't believe in "strategic" voting.
I vote on principles. If you put a Bilderberger sack of shit in front of me, I'm not going to vote for it, period. That is settling and compromise. I will only vote for someone I believe in.
I do not regard settling or compromise as a sign of pragmatic maturity. I regard it as a lack of conviction.
See you are not getting it. McCain was not my first choice for President neither but he still got my vote. And I don't see how you can say that McCain and Obama president's wouldn't be any different with a straight face. Yea it wouldn't be what you or I would like to see. If marginally better is the only choice then you need to make that choice. If you want better candidate's then we need to change the party and stop trying to look for a silver bullet to fix everything.
We didn't get here overnight and we are not going too be able to fix it overnight.Believe me I get it. I have been holding my nose to vote for years and I am tired of it. McCain would have been different and slightly better but I do not believe enough to matter. I do agree there is no silver bullet. Ron Paul, even if elected, would not be able to follow through with all of his promises, none of the candidates can. But he is a Republican and would be a step in the right direction, more so than Perry or Bauchman, or especially Romney. Herman Cain would be another one in the right direction. But I know so many people who like Paul or Cain the best but say they will be voting for Mitt or one of the others, because they are told that person is ahead in the polls:rolleyes:. Stop it, stop voting for someone just because they are in the lead! Vote for the candidate you think will do the best job! I would rather go down fighting for what I believe in than surrender because it will hurt less, especially if they are going to the same place.
lloydkristmas
08-14-11, 17:12
I don't believe in "strategic" voting.
I vote on principles. If you put a Bilderberger sack of shit in front of me, I'm not going to vote for it, period. That is settling and compromise. I will only vote for someone I believe in.
I do not regard settling or compromise as a sign of pragmatic maturity. I regard it as a lack of conviction.
So would you rather see Obama with a second term? Because thats whats gonna happen. It'd be great if Paul could swoop in and get us out of international quagmires and wars, repeal the NFA, etc, but its just NOT going to happen. I understand, and admire, your conviction, I really do. But in this case, voting for Paul will be a throwaway vote, a vote that could have kept Obama out of office.
Here's a question, and I'm not posing it in a smartass way. Im genuinely curious. Would you rather have Obama in the office again, or deal with Perry? Its the lesser of two evils, I know, but this country cant take more Obama.
I don't believe in "strategic" voting.
I vote on principles. If you put a Bilderberger sack of shit in front of me, I'm not going to vote for it, period. That is settling and compromise. I will only vote for someone I believe in.
I do not regard settling or compromise as a sign of pragmatic maturity. I regard it as a lack of conviction.
I don't get it...if McCain & Obama were all I had to choose from who could 'actually win'...why do I lack conviction or priciples because I can see which one is the smaller turd in the punch bowl??
Would you really stay home and/or do a write in candidate if we were faced with Obama again...I'm not really sure the country will survive another 4 years & think getting him out should be our objective over finding the perfect candidate at this point.
~~~~~~~
This brings me to a question: IF Obama (doubtful) has a serious rival for the dem ticket surface, which primary should we vote in??
Thomas M-4
08-14-11, 17:23
Believe me I get it. I have been holding my nose to vote for years and I am tired of it. McCain would have been different and slightly better but I do not believe enough to matter. I do agree there is no silver bullet. Ron Paul, even if elected, would not be able to follow through with all of his promises, none of the candidates can. But he is a Republican and would be a step in the right direction, more so than Perry or Bauchman, or especially Romney. Herman Cain would be another one in the right direction. But I know so many people who like Paul or Cain the best but say they will be voting for Mitt or one of the others, because they are told that person is ahead in the polls:rolleyes:. Stop it, stop voting for someone just because they are in the lead! Vote for the candidate you think will do the best job! I couldn't agree more with you concerning the PRIMARIES I would rather go down fighting for what I believe in than surrender because it will hurt less, especially if they are going to the same place.
If you want to go down fighting for your beliefs then you need to cast your vote for 1 of the 2 parties during the presidential election
even if the candidate is not your first choice from that party. You / We have to work on the party to produce better future candidates between the elections.
Belmont31R
08-14-11, 17:31
Time to pick the candidate is the primaries. Time to vote for president is afterwards.
Especially guys in battleground states. I don't see why the only choice is someone with ZERO chance to win or no one. If you see someone you like ask them to consider running early on...like Allen West. Let them know there is support for them out there even outside of their district, and you like what you have seen of them.
I would not vote for Romney even if he won the primaries but Perry is WAY better when it comes to things like gun rights and individual rights. Romney really should be a democrat.
If we can get a guy like Perry to win, and he actually stands a chance...then we can work on a more libertarian candidate assuming he does good and turns the country around. You're never going to get a libertarian straight away. Play chess not checkers. Also work on your Congressional districts, local, state, ect.
Democrats are much better at politics as much as I hate to say it. Getting someone from your party in there is the first step not just throwing your hands in the air and staying home because the perfect candidate isn't on the ballot. We wonder why the country is so damn liberal...because they put every effort into everything even if they aren't 100% on the same page as the candidate. Its better than a Republican to them even if the person is a bit on the conservative side. They sold Obama off as a moderate yet if our side tried to run a libertarian our own Republicans wouldn't even support them. But you have to start somewhere, and getting at least someone like Perry in there is a step in the right direction. Liberals have been chipping away for 50 years and we are not going to reverse everything they have done overnight. We got someone like Obama because of incremental acts on their part.
Thomas M-4
08-14-11, 17:43
I don't believe in "strategic" voting.
I vote on principles. If you put a Bilderberger sack of shit in front of me, I'm not going to vote for it, period. That is settling and compromise. I will only vote for someone I believe in.
I do not regard settling or compromise as a sign of pragmatic maturity. I regard it as a lack of conviction.
You vote on your principles in the Primary's as chadbag puts it that's when you get mad. When it comes to the elections you vote for the party. If you withhold your vote you are effectually voting for the other side because they do not have to counter-react your vote . IE they don't have to bus some bum from the projects.
variablebinary
08-14-11, 17:53
. But in this case, voting for Paul will be a throwaway vote, a vote that could have kept Obama out of office.
So be it.
lloydkristmas
08-14-11, 18:02
So be it.
So are you seriously saying that you would rather the United States endure another 4 years under Obama? Rather than elect Perry for President?
Really? Now I'm no serviceman, but I love my country dearly. To allow her to suffer under 4 more years of Barack Obama because I essentially didnt get my way? Thats selfish and illogical.
Thomas M-4
08-14-11, 18:15
Time to pick the candidate is the primaries. Time to vote for president is afterwards.
Especially guys in battleground states. I don't see why the only choice is someone with ZERO chance to win or no one. If you see someone you like ask them to consider running early on...like Allen West. Let them know there is support for them out there even outside of their district, and you like what you have seen of them.
I would not vote for Romney even if he won the primaries but Perry is WAY better when it comes to things like gun rights and individual rights. Romney really should be a democrat.
If we can get a guy like Perry to win, and he actually stands a chance...then we can work on a more libertarian candidate assuming he does good and turns the country around. You're never going to get a libertarian straight away. Play chess not checkers. Also work on your Congressional districts, local, state, ect.
Democrats are much better at politics as much as I hate to say it. Getting someone from your party in there is the first step not just throwing your hands in the air and staying home because the perfect candidate isn't on the ballot. We wonder why the country is so damn liberal...because they put every effort into everything even if they aren't 100% on the same page as the candidate. Its better than a Republican to them even if the person is a bit on the conservative side. They sold Obama off as a moderate yet if our side tried to run a libertarian our own Republicans wouldn't even support them. But you have to start somewhere, and getting at least someone like Perry in there is a step in the right direction. Liberals have been chipping away for 50 years and we are not going to reverse everything they have done overnight. We got someone like Obama because of incremental acts on their part.
Exactly, Exactly, Exactly This is it.
Romney IS a **** stick.
But that bastard would still get my vote:bad:
Because he should be if elected pulling more for the party line. Notice I said should be.
I don't believe in "strategic" voting.
I vote on principles. If you put a Bilderberger sack of shit in front of me, I'm not going to vote for it, period. That is settling and compromise. I will only vote for someone I believe in.
It sounds like you've been reading the Da Vinci Code again while smoking some of Ron Paul's funny cigarettes ;)
Let me get this straight, Perry speaks before the Bilderberger group in 2007 about Federal-State relations, and this disqualifies him from the presidency in your mind? Do you even know what he said? Did he suddenly change his policy positions towards a progressive agenda after the event. Please tell me that you have some other knowledge that Perry is some kind of Manchurian Candidate. Should we look for tattoos or implanted chips under his hairline? There has to be some better reason that you are going to refer to him as a "sack of shit." It's all-or-none statements like these that make people think that some of RP's supporters are, well, detached from reality.
Personally, I don't know enough about the guy to put him over the other top candidates although he appears to have done a decent job managing the TX economy for the past decade. I do look forward to learning more about his record and positions.
Belmont31R
08-14-11, 21:41
Exactly, Exactly, Exactly This is it.
Romney IS a **** stick.
But that bastard would still get my vote:bad:
Because he should be if elected pulling more for the party line. Notice I said should be.
Romney is someone I will not vote for. I don't think he is a Republican, and he way too far gone to even think about it. He's had plenty of chances to change his ways, and he's still hard line anti gun and pro mandatory health insurance. He just said during the debate it was the right thing to do for his state. Im sure he'd say the same thing as he signs an anti gun bill about the United States as a whole.
I have several core beliefs and several secondary beliefs on things. He is WAY outside of my zone where Id vote for someone even if they do have an R next to their name.
Thomas M-4
08-14-11, 21:58
Romney is someone I will not vote for. I don't think he is a Republican, and he way too far gone to even think about it. He's had plenty of chances to change his ways, and he's still hard line anti gun and pro mandatory health insurance. He just said during the debate it was the right thing to do for his state. Im sure he'd say the same thing as he signs an anti gun bill about the United States as a whole. Obama would do the same if he had the chance would he not?
I have several core beliefs and several secondary beliefs on things. He is WAY outside of my zone where Id vote for someone even if they do have an R next to their name.
He is most defiantly the worst by far.
And I would rather have the choice of any other republican that is still in the primaries right now.
Just the thought of him makes me want to yak.
Belmont31R
08-14-11, 22:03
It sounds like you've been reading the Da Vinci Code again while smoking some of Ron Paul's funny cigarettes ;)
Let me get this straight, Perry speaks before the Bilderberger group in 2007 about Federal-State relations, and this disqualifies him from the presidency in your mind? Do you even know what he said? Did he suddenly change his policy positions towards a progressive agenda after the event. Please tell me that you have some other knowledge that Perry is some kind of Manchurian Candidate. Should we look for tattoos or implanted chips under his hairline? There has to be some better reason that you are going to refer to him as a "sack of shit." It's all-or-none statements like these that make people think that some of RP's supporters are, well, detached from reality.
Personally, I don't know enough about the guy to put him over the other top candidates although he appears to have done a decent job managing the TX economy for the past decade. I do look forward to learning more about his record and positions.
The two main things he's been attacked on is the trans texas corridor and the gardisil shots.
I for one see the value in international trade as long as its done right. I can't say I like the idea of Mexican truckers with Mexican trucks operating in the US since my family drives on these roads, too, but that has already been done. We've had MX trucks down here for some time, and they just opened up the rest of the country to them, too.
The TTC was part of the "Super Highway" that would bring goods up from Central and South America and MX would build a similar system in their country. It would be wide, and cover things like water, fiber optic, electric, ect.
My main problem with it was that it was going to be a toll road, and a foreign company would be running it. We've had several toll roads built here in Austin and other big cities in TX. I can't say I like them but they wouldn't have been built in the first place. So Id rather have quick access around town and pay tolls than waste an hour going 10 miles.
Another complaint with the TTC is eminent domain being used to build the roads. Well we would not have near the infastructure we do without ED. The interstate HWY sys was built using ED. The Constitution actually provides for it....
5th Amendment:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Basically it would be a giant road going straight north, and then connecting with our existing interstate system. Perry abandoned the idea after lots of opposition. He didn't ignore the people and do it anyways.
Onto the Gardisil vaccine which is supposed to protect women against the HPV virus which causes cervical cancer. There was a mandate that all girls in sixth grade get the shot but PARENTS COULD OPT OUT. It was written into his executive order. If you want either look up his EO or Ill try to find it tomorrow. It wasn't going to be forced on anyone.
My wife has had the shot, and has had a scare with cervical cancer.
The issue here is Perry got 6k in donations from Merck who makes the drug, and he had some personal connections to people who worked for Merck at the time. Im sure he will give answers to these questions...but again with this shot parents could opt out, and its regularly available now. My wife has had it and her sister who just turned 18 this month got it 2 years ago. For someone reason theres a very vocal group of people out there who hear the word vaccine, and freak out. My own dumb ass sister didn't get my nephew his shots, and now he has to go to private school because the public schools wont admit him. Its so stupid....more people died from the Spanish flu than WW1, and we've practically wiped some real killers off the map through vaccinations. That doesn't mean every vaccine is without issues just that I think most of this thing about Gardisil is about it being a vaccine and not anything else.
Not saying Perry is perfect, and he has made mistakes. Id like to know more about his foreign policy stance, and I don't want the US to get in anymore wars or spend billions of tax dollars fighting for other people. I said before the only time Id approve military force is to protect the US homeland, to stop genocide, and help other countries with natural disasters. Not get into the middle of internal fights or get us into nation building that cost a ton of lives and money.
Fiscally, in TX we do not have a state income tax and sales tax is 8%. We have pretty reasonable DMV fees (under $100 for my car). School districts get money from property taxes, and have taxing authority. We pay around 3k a year on a house the tax people say is worth 156k thousand.
Oh and he has never vetoed a pro gun bill. Our state house has been stupid though, and passed concealed carry everywhere for themselves (as a response to the Giffords shooting) but failed to get us CC without restrictions. We've been trying to get carry on campus done for 2 legislative seasons now. The legislature meets only once every 2 years.
The two main things he's been attacked on is the trans texas corridor and the gardisil shots...
Thank you for your efforts with this post - very informative and a good place to start my own research.
pro mandatory health insurance. He just said during the debate it was the right thing to do for his state.
I am not pro Romney. I am not impressed that much with him as a candidate. But I think he is being misunderstood about the "right thing for his state" bit. Given the state he was in (Massachusetts, where I grew up from age 10 to adult and some adult life there as well, as well as 5 years just over the border in NH while working a year in Mass of those 5), and that the legislature was solidly Democrat liberal, he is probably right, it was the right thing for his state. That does not mean he supported it (he may or may not have, I don't know), but what I think he is saying is that given the circumstances, it was the best he could do (he watered down some provisions) given that they could override his veto and it was not worth the political capital to fight. A Republican governor alone in a state that is solid left in the legislature cannot force in small limited government (a state, which like California, has a good solid red minority, but enough big urban areas to tilt it solidly DARK blue). He has to work with what he is given and make compromises in order to stay in power and have what ever effect he can.
As President, I don't think he would push for mandatory insurance and I don't think he would veto getting rid of Obamacare. I think he has specifically called for its repeal.
If it comes down to Romney versus Obama, Romney has my vote (but not until it comes down to that -- I won't help him get there).
variablebinary
08-14-11, 23:30
So are you seriously saying that you would rather the United States endure another 4 years under Obama? Rather than elect Perry for President?
Really? Now I'm no serviceman, but I love my country dearly. To allow her to suffer under 4 more years of Barack Obama because I essentially didnt get my way? Thats selfish and illogical.
I personally would not benchmark love of country by one's willingness to empower a puppet of the banking cartels, and globalists.
There is absolutely no good reason for Perry to be associating with European globalists and aristocrats in Istanbul under the guise of "state and federal relations" unless he was trying to prove himself to be "their guy".
Perry or Romney will be nothing more than an extension of the Bush and Obama years.
Then you might as well vote for Obama. Ron Paul, unfortunately enough, cannot and will not win.
Perry is far from the ideal candidate, but we have to get Obama the hell out of Washington, and Perry might just be the ticket to doing just that.
And voting for some one that was unelectable Ross Perot comes to mind got us, Bill Clinton. With holding your vote just because it wasn't your dream candidate McCain got us Obama. If your candidate of choice didn't win the primaries then you need to suck it up and vote for your party our system is a Two party system.
So are you seriously saying that you would rather the United States endure another 4 years under Obama? Rather than elect Perry for President?
Really? Now I'm no serviceman, but I love my country dearly. To allow her to suffer under 4 more years of Barack Obama because I essentially didn't get my way? That's selfish and illogical.
I am SO fed up with RINO's and Chamber Republicans and the so called "religious right", that I REFUSE to vote for any of them! This might be the first national election where I may sit on the sidelines with a bag of popcorn for since 1984! Either that, or I might just march right down to the church and draw a line next to Obama's name, just to flip my Republican party the bird! I plan to tell them as much, via email and personal appearances at Republican campaign and fundraising events. I mean I'VE HAD IT WITH THEM!!!!!
They're so stupid that they can't even fathom their own complicity in destroying the party AND our country. If they're too stupid to nominate candidates with enough brain power to balance a checkbook, if they're too enthralled with themselves to nominate someone who will avoid embroiling us in the affairs of other nations, if they're too arrogant to nominate someone who will govern in accordance with the Constitution of The United States, rather than what they think they can get away with, THEN WHY THE HELL SHOULD I BOTHER WASTING MY TIME VOTING FOR THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd rather vote for the absolute worst candidates possible and hasten us to the point of no return, than waste one more vote on some worthless dumbass who will drag out our demise to the point of excruciating agony. I'm sorry, I just can't take it anymore. This constant parade of Republican fools and thieves has driven me over the edge. It's time for the gloves to come off. :mad:
Belmont31R
08-14-11, 23:36
Then he should say that. All he has done is defend Romney Care because of the 10th Amendment. He didn't say it was the best he could do given the rest of the state....which was my point. He's never once said he'd have liked a better plan that doesn't require mandatory insurance that Ive ever seen, and Ive seen several live interviews where he was asked. He's said, multiple times, that it was ok because it was a state not the Feds.
If that was the "best" he could do he's never said that in the many times Ive seen him asked that question in the last 1-2 years.
I think the idea of taking money from us, just to give it back to us to spend is ****ing retarded. That proves that there is a problem with our tax situation.
The wasteful government programs need to go too.
It also is sad that we have to vote for someone based on whether they are going to win and not because they are the best for the job.
Also have to consider the rest of congress and their influence on the president and laws that are passed.
Who cares if Perry likes to pray in public. Obama is a ****ing muslim.
He shouldnt have to hide his religion. Unless that religion is one that thinks we are infidels, then he would have to hide it.
if Gov Perry's faith and day of prayer are fair game, then so is jeremiah "god damn america" wright.
I have a serious point of contention with the TTC, NAFTA, etc and that Gov Perry is down with it. Ive read that he was in Turkey for a Bilderberg "thing". The MSM is clearly doing nothing more than stacking the deck for Barry. Wilbur has been the sure thing for 3 years and the rest of candidates are unelectable for whatever reason they feel is valid this week. They build up Perry this week, then knee-cap him next week. Like many others, I have concluded that the 2008 election is the last free election of the Republic. Even if Barry loses, we are going to be hearing from him for a very long time. Just like every liberal creature of government, his activism crap will not just fade away.
Then he should say that. All he has done is defend Romney Care because of the 10th Amendment. He didn't say it was the best he could do given the rest of the state....which was my point. He's never once said he'd have liked a better plan that doesn't require mandatory insurance that Ive ever seen, and Ive seen several live interviews where he was asked. He's said, multiple times, that it was ok because it was a state not the Feds.
If that was the "best" he could do he's never said that in the many times Ive seen him asked that question in the last 1-2 years.
It has been a while since I saw an interview with him. I tend to avoid such things. They all make me sick.
However, you may be reading into the question and answer what you think the question is asking while he is answering something else. He is right that it is a 10th Amendment issue. That does not touch on whether that is the best way to solve healthcare, only the "attacks" on him for signing it based on comparisons to Obama care.
He may really think that is the best way to handle it. I don't know. But the things I have read make me think that people read into it what they want to hear. He is hearing an attack and comparison to Obamacare, not a fundamental question on the appropriateness of the idea at all. So he answers it so. Others are more concerned about the idea and don't get the distinction he is making between state and Federal powers. This recent "corporations are people too" thing as well. That was totally misunderstood and blown out of proportion (mainly because the whole conversation was not reported, as he explained himself, but just the "headline" showed up in most reports)
I am not trying to stick up for Romney and say he is great. I just think that the people who ask him questions and Romney himself talk past each other.
VooDoo6Actual
08-14-11, 23:44
if Gov Perry's faith and day of prayer are fair game, then so is jeremiah "god damn america" wright.
I have a serious point of contention with the TTC, NAFTA, etc and that Gov Perry is down with it. Ive read that he was in Turkey for a Bilderberg "thing". The MSM is clearly doing nothing more than stacking the deck for Barry. Wilbur has been the sure thing for 3 years and the rest of candidates are unelectable for whatever reason they feel is valid this week. They build up Perry this week, then knee-cap him next week. Like many others, I have concluded that the 2008 election is the last free election of the Republic. Even if Barry loses, we are going to be hearing from him for a very long time. Just like every liberal creature of government, his activism crap will not just fade away.
well said.
Belmont31R
08-14-11, 23:53
It has been a while since I saw an interview with him. I tend to avoid such things. They all make me sick.
However, you may be reading into the question and answer what you think the question is asking while he is answering something else. He is right that it is a 10th Amendment issue. That does not touch on whether that is the best way to solve healthcare, only the "attacks" on him for signing it based on comparisons to Obama care.
He may really think that is the best way to handle it. I don't know. But the things I have read make me think that people read into it what they want to hear. He is hearing an attack and comparison to Obamacare, not a fundamental question on the appropriateness of the idea at all. So he answers it so. Others are more concerned about the idea and don't get the distinction he is making between state and Federal powers. This recent "corporations are people too" thing as well. That was totally misunderstood and blown out of proportion (mainly because the whole conversation was not reported, as he explained himself, but just the "headline" showed up in most reports)
I am not trying to stick up for Romney and say he is great. I just think that the people who ask him questions and Romney himself talk past each other.
Whatever the reason he's never said anything other than states rights vs. Federal.
Ive seen him on Hannity, Greta, debates, and other shows. He's been asked pretty straight forward. Did you watch the debates?
Its actually something Ive been intent on because for the past year they've been reporting him as the front runner.
An answer like that was the best he could do would be a lot better than states rights....but then again Id rather him have vetoed it and let mass do what they will than have him A) sign off on it and B) continue to defend it as a states rights issue.
You're probably right. I have not seen or heard him "live" in quite some time. I just cannot stomach political TV any more. It all makes me sick. I must be getting old.
Most of what I have "heard" him say has been in print articles. I read a lot of those on my iPhone while waiting for things etc. When reading accounts of him and interviews etc it comes across to me that he is speaking right by his accuser^H^H^H^H^H^H^H questioner and vice versa.
I think he would be much better than Obama overall but he has a bunch of down sides and is not in my top choices.
Whatever the reason he's never said anything other than states rights vs. Federal.
Ive seen him on Hannity, Greta, debates, and other shows. He's been asked pretty straight forward. Did you watch the debates?
Its actually something Ive been intent on because for the past year they've been reporting him as the front runner.
An answer like that was the best he could do would be a lot better than states rights....but then again Id rather him have vetoed it and let mass do what they will than have him A) sign off on it and B) continue to defend it as a states rights issue.
Belmont31R
08-15-11, 00:07
One of the important things Im looking at is SCOTUS justices, and we have a few oldies on the bench. Im not so sure Romney would nominate the right type of folks if you know what I mean. Bush V2 was more right leaning than Romney, and his SCOTUS selections were nothing but a goat ****.
That is one of the MAJOR flaws with electing a RINO. ****ing Souter. Right now we'd be at about 5 3/4ths majority instead of 4 3/4ths. Obama has had the same number of justices as Bush 2.....:rolleyes:
One of the important things Im looking at is SCOTUS justices, and we have a few oldies on the bench. Im not so sure Romney would nominate the right type of folks if you know what I mean. Bush V2 was more right leaning than Romney, and his SCOTUS selections were nothing but a goat ****.
That is one of the MAJOR flaws with electing a RINO. ****ing Souter. Right now we'd be at about 5 3/4ths majority instead of 4 3/4ths. Obama has had the same number of justices as Bush 2.....:rolleyes:
I think you mean Bush 1.
Roberts and Alito (Bush 2) are not bad. Souter was Bush 1.
I do agree you have to look at SCOTUS.
I'd take Romney's picks over Obama's though. You know you are going to need the whole friggin' Vaseline factory with his picks.
Belmont31R
08-15-11, 00:19
I think you mean Bush 1.
Roberts and Alito (Bush 2) are not bad. Souter was Bush 1.
I do agree you have to look at SCOTUS.
I'd take Romney's picks over Obama's though. You know you are going to need the whole friggin' Vaseline factory with his picks.
Just worded it wrong. Yeah Souter was Bush Sr.
Bush 2 had some trouble with his picks, though, too.
Thomas M-4
08-15-11, 00:24
I am SO fed up with RINO's and Chamber Republicans and the so called "religious right", that I REFUSE to vote for any of them! This might be the first national election where I may sit on the sidelines with a bag of popcorn for since 1984! Either that, or I might just march right down to the church and draw a line next to Obama's name, just to flip my Republican party the bird! I plan to tell them as much, via email and personal appearances at Republican campaign and fundraising events. I mean I'VE HAD IT WITH THEM!!!!!Good for you more of that needs to happen me and my family have all sent e-mail with complaints to our representatives in congress
They're so stupid that they can't even fathom their own complicity in destroying the party AND our country. If they're too stupid to nominate candidates with enough brain power to balance a checkbook, if they're too enthralled with themselves to nominate someone who will avoid embroiling us in the affairs of other nations, if they're too arrogant to nominate someone who will govern in accordance with the Constitution of The United States, rather than what they think they can get away with, THEN WHY THE HELL SHOULD I BOTHER WASTING MY TIME VOTING FOR THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!If you have a candidate you like. I assuming some one like Ron Paul for instance that is in congress wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there could be legislation from him that might get through if there was a republican in the WH
I'd rather vote for the absolute worst candidates possible and hasten us to the point of no return, than waste one more vote on some worthless dumbass who will drag out our demise to the point of excruciating agony. I'm sorry, I just can't take it anymore. This constant parade of Republican fools and thieves has driven me over the edge. It's time for the gloves to come off. :mad:
Not that I personally believe this but would you be this out right. If worse came to worse and you are sitting in a re-education camp. Would you tell your fellow inmates this??
The hippes / Cloward–Piven strategy that started in the 60's that has slowly but steadily taken over root 40 yrs later, It can not be assumed to be turned around it 1 or 2 elections ? Seems mighty short sided to me. There is allot of talk about the instant gratification generation in this forum it seems to me to be very hypocritical to expect a instant solution to this problem. It may very well take my entire lifetime fighting this are you willing to fight for it for your entire life time?
Belmont31R
08-15-11, 00:37
I think we need a group M4C reading of Rules for Radicals.
As much as Id like to see welfare ended today, and social security ended anyone who does it just like "that" will endure a presidency of hate, scorn, and burning cities not seen since the Civil War.
I can wait 20 years if it means just getting someone in there now to cut the ****ing spending down to manageable levels, and actually even try to cut taxes. Then we can go from there.
I like RP but he has ZERO charisma, and comes across as a nursing home patient who escaped outside. Not to be mean, and I do agree with MOST of what he says....he is just not realistic at all when it comes to even being competitive. All the times he has run has he ever won a single state primary?
Id like to get the most far right ELECTABLE candidate we can. Its not that his IDEAS are wrong its his PRESENTATION.
For instance George Washington was a TERRIBLE military commander, and it was through his communication the Army held together. Several times everything almost fell apart. Your ideas are worthless if you can't effectively communicate.
If there was a candidate in his 50's to 60's with charm and who was personable with Ron Paul's ideas we'd have a contender.
Moose-Knuckle
08-15-11, 00:53
I personally would not benchmark love of country by one's willingness to empower a puppet of the banking cartels, and globalists.
There is absolutely no good reason for Perry to be associating with European globalists and aristocrats in Istanbul under the guise of "state and federal relations" unless he was trying to prove himself to be "their guy".
Perry or Romney will be nothing more than an extension of the Bush and Obama years.
This.
If anyone actually believes that any candidate, whether Republican or Democrat is going to be ANY different than every other administration. . .then they are going to have a very rude awakening.
IMHO, the general election is a dog and pony show, nothing more. Let the useless eaters think their voice matters.
Belmont31R
08-15-11, 00:59
I am leary of him, too.
But a journey starts with one foot in front of the other.
We have 40 years of liberalism to unravel. It ain't going to be done in one election even with Ron Paul.
This.
If anyone actually believes that any candidate, whether Republican or Democrat is going to be ANY different than every other administration. . .then they are going to have a very rude awakening.
IMHO, the general election is a dog and pony show, nothing more. Let the useless eaters think their voice matters.
Obama is much different than Bush. I am not saying that Bush was great or anything but Obama is much different and much worse. I'd much rather have had another Bush (McCain) than Obama. We'd be in better shape now.
We are deluding ourselves if we think we can just tune out and not participate "because it doesn't matter anyway"
Not that I personally believe this but would you be this out right. If worse came to worse and you are sitting in a re-education camp. Would you tell your fellow inmates this??
The hippes / Cloward–Piven strategy that started in the 60's that has slowly but steadily taken over root 40 yrs later, It can not be assumed to be turned around it 1 or 2 elections ? Seems mighty short sided to me. There is allot of talk about the instant gratification generation in this forum it seems to me to be very hypocritical to expect a instant solution to this problem. It may very well take my entire lifetime fighting this are you willing to fight for it for your entire life time?
Keep voting for these same assclowns and it will be in your grandchildren's lifetime, if the republic lasts that long. I've stopped believing anything the Republican party says. They're dumber than a box of rocks. They have no political savvy and no real ideas. They just keep doing the same stupid shit over and over again, hoping it will work the next time around. At this point all I'm willing to do for them is kick them right square in the nuts. If they nominate Romney, Perry, Bachmann or anyone else from this parade of idiots, I'd rather cut my hand off than use it to vote for them.
All I want to see from the Republican party is a candidate who will say "NO". Not "no because _____", just "NO". No more spending on stupid shit. No more wasting tax dollars on other countries problems. No more testing the COTUS to see what you can get away with. No more restrictions on the people. I want a president who will tell the press to STFU and report the facts, not their bullshit spin on the situation. I want a president who will yank a knot in the Fed chairman's ass every ****ing day, until they stop playing russian roulette with the dollar. I want a president who will slam the door in Wall Street's face, literally. I want a president who wields the Justice Dept. like a samurai sword, against the government itself rather than the people. I want a president who reminds Congress on a daily basis exactly how pissed off the country is with them. I want the most veto-happy, dickhead president we've ever had.
Essentially, I want a president who will strike fear and loathing in the hearts of all these cretins who are sucking the lifeblood out of this country for their own personal gain. I want a president who will be respected by friend and foe alike. Until the Republican party can find the balls to back a horse like that, they can piss off! :mad:
Belmont31R
08-15-11, 01:37
We all do.
Now name the person who can get elected and do all that.
Thomas M-4
08-15-11, 01:44
This.
If anyone actually believes that any candidate, whether Republican or Democrat is going to be ANY different than every other administration. . .then they are going to have a very rude awakening. Could you be right yes but I will still vote my conscience even if the out come is the same but only delayed. If I can only delay it my entire life time it would be a small victory
IMHO, the general election is a dog and pony show, nothing more. Let the useless eaters think their voice matters.
You are doing nothing more than sticking your head up your ass.
They are not drawing blood from you yet.
We all do.
Now name the person who can get elected and do all that.
That's just it. If the Republican party would stop being so stupid and actually bother to back such a person, I think they would be electable. So many people are fed up and disillusioned with the entire political process that they've given up. Bring them back to the polls and you just might get someone like that elected. Unfortunately the Republican party is corrupt. They've sold their principles for cash, subsidies and tax breaks. :(
Thomas M-4
08-15-11, 01:49
Keep voting for these same assclowns and it will be in your grandchildren's lifetime, if the republic lasts that long. I've stopped believing anything the Republican party says. They're dumber than a box of rocks. They have no political savvy and no real ideas. They just keep doing the same stupid shit over and over again, hoping it will work the next time around. At this point all I'm willing to do for them is kick them right square in the nuts. If they nominate Romney, Perry, Bachmann or anyone else from this parade of idiots, I'd rather cut my hand off than use it to vote for them.
All I want to see from the Republican party is a candidate who will say "NO". Not "no because _____", just "NO". No more spending on stupid shit. No more wasting tax dollars on other countries problems. No more testing the COTUS to see what you can get away with. No more restrictions on the people. I want a president who will tell the press to STFU and report the facts, not their bullshit spin on the situation. I want a president who will yank a knot in the Fed chairman's ass every ****ing day, until they stop playing russian roulette with the dollar. I want a president who will slam the door in Wall Street's face, literally. I want a president who wields the Justice Dept. like a samurai sword, against the government itself rather than the people. I want a president who reminds Congress on a daily basis exactly how pissed off the country is with them. I want the most veto-happy, dickhead president we've ever had.
Essentially, I want a president who will strike fear and loathing in the hearts of all these cretins who are sucking the lifeblood out of this country for their own personal gain. I want a president who will be respected by friend and foe alike. Until the Republican party can find the balls to back a horse like that, they can piss off! :mad:
Yea I want the same.
But I am not going to say **** it because I am not getting my way now.
That's just it. If the Republican party would stop being so stupid and actually bother to back such a person, I think they would be electable. So many people are fed up and disillusioned with the entire political process that they've given up. Bring them back to the polls and you just might get someone like that elected.
No you wouldn't. The number of people who have become that apathetic who would come back with such a candidate is not very large.
You need to turn the ship of state around, but it is a battleship, not a speedboat, and will take a lot of time and effort to do it.
---
As an analogy. During WW2 the Germans invaded Russia. Some times they advanced too much and got beaten. Sometimes they had to pull back and regroup. Then as the war stated to turn against them they turned more to the defensive. However, as long as the Generals could actually make the decisions, including sometimes tactical retreats, they could usually make the best of it and turn things around. But when Hitler stuck his nose in and ordered them to stand ground at any cost, they got their asses handed to them by the Russians.
My point is, sometimes it may look like you are retreating but you really are looking for better and more defensible ground. When you get dogmatic and hold the ground at any cost you lose.
Belmont31R
08-15-11, 01:56
That's just it. If the Republican party would stop being so stupid and actually bother to back such a person, I think they would be electable. So many people are fed up and disillusioned with the entire political process that they've given up. Bring them back to the polls and you just might get someone like that elected. Unfortunately the Republican party is corrupt. They've sold their principles for cash, subsidies and tax breaks. :(
So start now and get Obama out of office.
Moose-Knuckle
08-15-11, 02:46
You are doing nothing more than sticking your head up your ass.
They are not drawing blood from you yet.
It is apparent that you are the one who chooses to suffer from cranium rectal inversion with your view on the general election and the GOP.
Attack anyone who doesn't agree with you and your heresy.
Hold on to the hope of making a difference with your ballot as you vote a Republican straight ticket. Individuals like you are why We the People suffer at the hands of the two party system.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/sheep.jpg
Thomas M-4
08-15-11, 02:51
It is apparent that you are the one who chooses to suffer from cranium rectal inversion with your view on the general election and the GOP.
Attack anyone who doesn't agree with you and your heresy.
Hold on to the hope of making a difference with your ballot as you vote a Republican straight ticket. Individuals like you are why We the People suffer at the hands of the two party system.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/sheep.jpg
OK fine then what is your great solution?
Moose-Knuckle
08-15-11, 04:35
http://www.wayodd.com/noindex2/funny-pictures-head-up-your-ass-Afq.jpg
This is your rebuttal, again?
OK fine then what is your great solution?
Flush the toilet?
BTW I voted for Perot and that got us Clinton or you just going to with hold your vote that got us Obama.
Gee, a billionare elitist. . .who didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes:
Since I became legal voting age I have never "hold" a vote. In the last GOP primary I voted for Ron Paul. In the last general election I voted for "the lesser of two evils" McCain.
Regurgitating the same old political rhetoric, ad nauseam.
Thomas M-4
08-15-11, 05:22
This is your rebuttal, again?
Flush the toilet?
Gee, a billionare elitist. . .who didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes:
Since I became legal voting age I have never "hold" a vote. In the last GOP primary I voted for Ron Paul. In the last general election I voted for "the lesser of two evils" McCain.
Regurgitating the same old political rhetoric, ad nauseam.
Sounds like voting for Ron Paul got you the same result has voting for Perot got me. How is that working out for you? Same as me It would seem.
Still waiting on you for your solution?
Yea he was a self made billionaire industrialist that tried to warn everybody that American wealth was being imported over seas.
And actually tried to stop it when he could. You are right what a dumb ass.
Maybe you can try fixing the apertures that might give you a chance to eventually give you a chance to actually vote for some one that is more favorable to your liking, Than sticking your head up your ass and yelling LALALALA I am not listing and screw every one its not who I want. Typical entailment/ instant gratification attitude from the younger generation.
thopkins22
08-15-11, 08:56
Every time we as libertarians/conservatives/anyone leaning right at all, elect another one of these pseudo conservatives we do nothing other than invalidate our ideas in the minds of people sitting on the fence. Markets are either free or they are not. Society is either free or it is not. Playing it in the middle like we have done for quite a while leaves us with a system that is gradually deteriorated by the left while convincing them that they are correct because they can say "look at what happened under X."
What will this country have learned from four years of Obama? While his policies have been terrible(certainly only marginally worse than McCain's,) could you have conceived of monetary policy being mentioned by anyone other than Ron Paul and occasionally Steve Forbes four years ago? The support for truly getting something done about the tax code, debt, and ending the deficit spending?
Let's remember that George Bush helped congress push upon us the largest entitlement program since the Johnson administration. I'm through with trying to be pragmatic. It doesn't deliver anything I'd be proud to attach my name to. The right has done nothing but "compromise" not by give and take, but by allowing the left to do everything it wants at a slower pace. I'd rather see four more years of Obama if that's what it takes to convince more independents and Republicans to vote for someone who is serious.
It is apparent that you are the one who chooses to suffer from cranium rectal inversion with your view on the general election and the GOP.
Attack anyone who doesn't agree with you and your heresy.
Hold on to the hope of making a difference with your ballot as you vote a Republican straight ticket. Individuals like you are why We the People suffer at the hands of the two party system.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/sheep.jpg
Some of us prefer to live within the realities that exist and make the best of them; try to change them. Others prefer to exist in a fantasyland.
Actually, people with your attitude are why we suffer at the hands of the two party system. You won't change the system away from a two party system. It is not possible due to the way the country was set up originally with a winner-takes-all system. Because of that, you need to work within the two party system to effect change that is compatible with your (and probably all of our) goals.
Now is the time to start working on that -- in the primaries before the general election. This is when you can try and effect change. I support you on that. (And at the local level at all occasions.) Once the candidates are chosen, that is our new reality. If we don't work within that reality then we are the ones who have the delusional mental illness. We allow others to make decisions for us.
Every time we as libertarians/conservatives/anyone leaning right at all, elect another one of these pseudo conservatives we do nothing other than invalidate our ideas in the minds of people sitting on the fence. Markets are either free or they are not. Society is either free or it is not. Playing it in the middle like we have done for quite a while leaves us with a system that is gradually deteriorated by the left while convincing them that they are correct because they can say "look at what happened under X."
What will this country have learned from four years of Obama? While his policies have been terrible(certainly only marginally worse than McCain's,)
Obama is not only marginally worse than McCain would have been. Compared to Obama McCain would have been light years ahead. Not where we want it but at least a few trillion less in deficit, not going around apologizing to every person in the world, etc.
could you have conceived of monetary policy being mentioned by anyone other than Ron Paul and occasionally Steve Forbes four years ago? The support for truly getting something done about the tax code, debt, and ending the deficit spending?
Let's remember that George Bush helped congress push upon us the largest entitlement program since the Johnson administration. I'm through with trying to be pragmatic. It doesn't deliver anything I'd be proud to attach my name to. The right has done nothing but "compromise" not by give and take, but by allowing the left to do everything it wants at a slower pace. I'd rather see four more years of Obama if that's what it takes to convince more independents and Republicans to vote for someone who is serious.
Your plan will not get Republicans to vote for someone who is serious. It will only get you more Bachmann type candidates.
thopkins22
08-15-11, 09:15
Your plan will not get Republicans to vote for someone who is serious. It will only get you more Bachmann type candidates.
I disagree. The moral circus has been around since before Bush and Obama.
I disagree. The moral circus has been around since before Bush and Obama.
THat was not the point. The point was that that sort of plan (Obama another 4) ends up activating and motivating the Bachmann supporter types. The ones who get their pants all up in a tizzy.
Obama is not only marginally worse than McCain would have been. Compared to Obama McCain would have been light years ahead.
I disagree, then to add insult to injury the dems could point to McCain and say look how his policy's failed and then get to blame the Republicans.
Your plan will not get Republicans to vote for someone who is serious. It will only get you more Bachmann type candidates.
She is no where NEAR the top, but she would be better than Mitt or McCain
4x4twenty6
08-15-11, 12:37
This country needs a good strong conservative Republican candidate.
Not a soft left leaning Republican like Mitt Romney who is gonna cave and sympathize with the dems on their bullshit issues.
Ron Paul as President would be a great win for the country and Bachmann as VP would not be a bad deal.
Until we stop the moderate to left, fake ass republican candidates from getting in congress, senate and our presidential candidate then the dems will always win and republicans will look weak and not united.
Sounds like voting for Ron Paul got you the same result has voting for Perot got me. How is that working out for you? Same as me It would seem.
Still waiting on you for your solution?
Yea he was a self made billionaire industrialist that tried to warn everybody that American wealth was being imported over seas.
And actually tried to stop it when he could. You are right what a dumb ass.
Maybe you can try fixing the apertures that might give you a chance to eventually give you a chance to actually vote for some one that is more favorable to your liking, Than sticking your head up your ass and yelling LALALALA I am not listing and screw every one its not who I want. Typical entailment/ instant gratification attitude from the younger generation.
http://www.wayodd.com/noindex2/funny-pictures-head-up-your-ass-Afq.jpg
On the flip side of that coin is rewarding the Republican party with your vote now, while repeating "I'm holding my nose while voting for your stinker of a candidate, but I expect you to nominate a better one next time!" Then you sit back for another four years and expect they'll reward you for your efforts with a candidate you'd enthusiastically vote for? How's that been working out for you? So long as you're willing to settle for the lesser of two evils, they'll continue to reward you with more lesser evils, rather than the good candidate you really want. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
I've been waiting for the Republican party to nominate a decent candidate since 1988. I've steadfastly held my nose and voted for the stinkers they keep nominating, all this time. I think giving them almost a quarter century is more than enough time. They refuse to listen, so I'm done giving them something for nothing. If they want my vote, they'll have to earn it. :mad:
amazing...the gun rights and scotus appointments alone would get me to the winner.
I don't know why i'm commenting as I know what color state we'll be...doesn't matter which candidate makes it to the final 2, but it will be cast against the current admin and any degree off the path is acceptable.
Right now i'm going rp in the primaries & am glad to see him in the republican party.
Hell, I'm praying the dems put in a player...may his polls keep dropping.
Belmont31R
08-15-11, 17:41
Obama getting even one more SCOTUS justice would be far worse than 4 years of Perry or someone else.
Both of our recent gun cases came down to one vote.
Thomas M-4
08-15-11, 18:35
On the flip side of that coin is rewarding the Republican party with your vote now, while repeating "I'm holding my nose while voting for your stinker of a candidate, but I expect you to nominate a better one next time!" Then you sit back for another four years and expect they'll reward you for your efforts with a candidate you'd enthusiastically vote for? How's that been working out for you? So long as you're willing to settle for the lesser of two evils, they'll continue to reward you with more lesser evils, rather than the good candidate you really want. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
I've been waiting for the Republican party to nominate a decent candidate since 1988. I've steadfastly held my nose and voted for the stinkers they keep nominating, all this time. I think giving them almost a quarter century is more than enough time. They refuse to listen, so I'm done giving them something for nothing. If they want my vote, they'll have to earn it. :mad:
You are absolutely right they have been ****ing us over for yrs and yrs. No argument here.
Do you expect any thing to change by purposely throwing away your vote??
We just did that with Bush senior he was a standing president and by all rights should have sailed in to a second term. We sent him packing and got 8yrs of Clinton. Then we got Bush JR for the very next president ,THE VERY NEXT ONE. What did it change? Why do you think it will be different now? Why try that proven failed strategy again?
:laugh: For all of the Ron Paul fan boy's I like the man I would gladly vote for him to be president [IF HE WAS NOMINATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.]
But here is the deal the party has the obligation to nominate some one that has a reasonably good chance of being elected. Belmont said it best We need the most right sided candidate possible that is [key word> electable] . We may only get a tiny change :mad: I don't like it any more than anybody else. But we are in a WAR and its not reasonable to assume that it will be won by one battle.
chadbag's
analogy. During WW2 the Germans invaded Russia. Some times they advanced too much and got beaten. Sometimes they had to pull back and regroup. Then as the war stated to turn against them they turned more to the defensive. However, as long as the Generals could actually make the decisions, including sometimes tactical retreats, they could usually make the best of it and turn things around. But when Hitler stuck his nose in and ordered them to stand ground at any cost, they got their asses handed to them by the Russians. .
On the flip side of that coin is rewarding the Republican party with your vote now, while repeating "I'm holding my nose while voting for your stinker of a candidate, but I expect you to nominate a better one next time!" Then you sit back for another four years and expect they'll reward you for your efforts with a candidate you'd enthusiastically vote for? How's that been working out for you? So long as you're willing to settle for the lesser of two evils, they'll continue to reward you with more lesser evils, rather than the good candidate you really want. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
I've been waiting for the Republican party to nominate a decent candidate since 1988. I've steadfastly held my nose and voted for the stinkers they keep nominating, all this time. I think giving them almost a quarter century is more than enough time. They refuse to listen, so I'm done giving them something for nothing. If they want my vote, they'll have to earn it. :mad:
What are you doing in the intervening 4 years between presidential elections to get a non-stinker on the ballot?
What are you doing in the intervening 4 years between presidential elections to get a non-stinker on the ballot?
I try to let the Republican "leadership" know that their direction isn't working and that their candidates are unappealing. I sent letters & emails and speak with local volunteers about the poor choices that the Republican party makes. I also speak with those inclined to listen to political discussion with an open mind on the subject.
Sadly, I've yet to find a candidate appealing enough to actually volunteer on a campaign. :(
I try to let the Republican "leadership" know that their direction isn't working and that their candidates are unappealing. I sent letters & emails and speak with local volunteers about the poor choices that the Republican party makes. I also speak with those inclined to listen to political discussion with an open mind on the subject.
Sadly, I've yet to find a candidate appealing enough to actually volunteer on a campaign. :(
I don't know how the RP works in your area but we have local delegates to the party conventions. If you have something like that, have you gotten yourself and like minded people elected as delegates to your county or state party convention? Where you can then vote on platforms, candidates, etc?
(note that I have not done any of that myself though some neighbors have)
I try to let the Republican "leadership" know that their direction isn't working and that their candidates are unappealing. I sent letters & emails and speak with local volunteers about the poor choices that the Republican party makes. I also speak with those inclined to listen to political discussion with an open mind on the subject.
Sadly, I've yet to find a candidate appealing enough to actually volunteer on a campaign. :(
I assume that you plan to run for office since there are no candidates that meet your standards of deserving a ballot. If not, then welcome to Cowardsville; Population - YOU.
People who don't vote, sit around complaining about the field of candidates, and never volunteer / run for office are worse for the country than the parasites collecting welfare. That's right, it is the moral responsibility of every American to participate in the political system - the most basic form of which is to vote. A shit load of people died to give you that ability, and you are disrespecting that sacrifice by simply sitting on your hands. If you feel that all of the available candidates are such a poor reflection of your morals that you can't bring yourself to cast a ballot, then get off your ass and run for office. Only the lowest moral coward would allow their country to slip into an abyss without voting to change the trajectory, or taking a more active role to save their community by putting their name on a ballot. So, if your planning on missing the voting booth on Super Tuesday 2012 (or any other election), it better be because you are doing some last minute campaigning for your own candidacy for mayor, town counsel, city manager, dog catcher, etc.
Thomas M-4
08-16-11, 00:25
I assume that you plan to run for office since there are no candidates that meet your standards of deserving a ballot. If not, then welcome to Cowardsville; Population - YOU.
People who don't vote, sit around complaining about the field of candidates, and never volunteer / run for office are worse for the country than the parasites collecting welfare. That's right, it is the moral responsibility of every American to participate in the political system - the most basic form of which is to vote. A shit load of people died to give you that ability, and you are disrespecting that sacrifice by simply sitting on your hands. If you feel that all of the available candidates are such a poor reflection of your morals that you can't bring yourself to cast a ballot, then get off your ass and run for office. Only the lowest moral coward would allow their country to slip into an abyss without voting to change the trajectory, or taking a more active role to save their community by putting their name on a ballot. So, if your planning on missing the voting booth on Super Tuesday 2012 (or any other election), it better be because you are doing some last minute campaigning for your own candidacy for mayor, town counsel, city manager, dog catcher, etc.
Bravo, lanesmith I think you need to change your screen name to Wordsmith.
Moose-Knuckle
08-16-11, 05:05
Sounds like voting for Ron Paul got you the same result has voting for Perot got me. How is that working out for you? Same as me It would seem.
Not harldy, as I vote my concious. Scoff all you may but I have my honor and can sleep at night. I cannot even begin to tell you how much your opinion does not matter to me. If you had read my last post then you would know that I voted for McCain in the general election, not Paul. You want to eat a shit sandwich and hold your nose, bon appétit.
Still waiting on you for your solution?
Then read it in my last response.
Yea he was a self made billionaire industrialist that tried to warn everybody that American wealth was being imported over seas.
And actually tried to stop it when he could. You are right what a dumb ass.
Typical, putting words in my mouth. Perot ran interference for Clinton; hook, line, and sinker.
Maybe you can try fixing the apertures that might give you a chance to eventually give you a chance to actually vote for some one that is more favorable to your liking, Than sticking your head up your ass and yelling LALALALA I am not listing and screw every one its not who I want. Typical entailment/ instant gratification attitude from the younger generation.
Again, typical. Rant, throw your toys, hurl insults with your defeatists mentality.
http://www.wayodd.com/noindex2/funny-pictures-head-up-your-ass-Afq.jpg
You keep posting this homo erotic picture of your thought process. This, is a clue.
4x4twenty6
08-16-11, 05:27
The simple fact is that the media and the GOP and all their little behind closed doors supporters are down playing Ron Paul so bad that is becoming blatantly obvious.
John Stewarts brought up with a bunch of highlights of Fox news blatantly disregarding Ron Paul.
GOP has an agenda and they are not down playing that agenda at all.
I havent started work yet so i stay pretty informed and all i day think, why am i not hearing about Ron Paul?
The GOP will get who they want, not what the people are wanting and unfortunately a large percentage of people only pay attention to who the GOP picks and then goes from there.
The_War_Wagon
08-16-11, 06:49
I'd sooner pick random Texans for President & Cabinet, than a bunch of Ivy-league 'know-it-all,' know-nothings propping up a foreign-born community agitator. We already KNOW how much that combo SUCKS! :mad:
Thomas M-4
08-16-11, 09:06
Moose-Knuckle Not harldy, as I vote my concious. Scoff all you may but I have my honor and can sleep at night. I cannot even begin to tell you how much your opinion does not matter to me. If you had read my last post then you would know that I voted for McCain in the general election, not Paul. You want to eat a shit sandwich and hold your nose, bon appétit.
I re-red it and yes you did and I stand corrected.
Then read it in my last response.
Fine how do you propose to flush the toilet
Typical, putting words in my mouth. Perot ran interference for Clinton; hook, line, and sinker.
:rolleyes:
Again, typical. Rant, throw your toys, hurl insults with your defeatists mentality.
Originally Posted by Moose-Knuckle View Post
Hold on to the hope of making a difference with your ballot as you vote a Republican straight ticket. Individuals like you are why We the People suffer at the hands of the two party system.
Who has the defeatists mentality.
You keep posting this homo erotic picture of your thought process. This, is a clue.
After reflection it is in bad taste and I will remove it from my posts
You have only been standing back and sniping with out adding anything.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.