2016 will you vote 4 a real conservative...

[revelarts]

2016 will you vote 4 a real conservative...Or any old body that's going for and get the R candidate spot?

I was just thinking we just had Romney who was basically a liberal Governor who "promised" he's changed to real conservative now. But his policies wher 75% the same even then. just a matter of degrees on most issues. And he's never showed any great love for the constitution.

McCain 4 years earlier was the "maverick" Republican. another so-so conservative. a mixed to lame record in the senate on conservative issues, socail issues he was terrible. And he's never showed any great love for the constitution.

the only solid difference is both talked a tougher line concerning war.
And we need more war like a hole in the head.


So my is question, after 2consecutive losses now, to a guy that's not even living up to most of his liberal friends standards. will you push harder for a candidate that is a serious conservative and maybe even bolt the party if they/we post another Rhino Republican presidential candidate?
Is another unlikely R "win" that important to you that literally anything is better. Even if they can't rally the troops and don't really DO ANYTHING conservative, except war (which is somehow conservative now) when they get into office?

[cadet]

Like most Americans, I'm going to vote for the guy i like the most with the best shot of not screwing us over. I that means i have to go for my second bet, cause my first is not going to make it, i'll vote for the one that calls himself republican. Most likely it'll turn out to be Paul Ryan.

Which means yes, I'll vote for the NEO-con if i deem it necessary. Look at the election of 1912.


Edit; Hell, look at the last election, if it weren't for the libertarian Obama wouldn't be in office.

[aboutime]

rev. There is a possibility none of us on this forum will even be here, or around by 2016. Asking anyone WHO they will vote for now, before Obama has his second inaugural party is like asking AL ROKER what time it will snow in December of next year.

Unless, of course. YOU KNOW THE ANSWER to that question already?

[tailfins]

I'm undecided between Chris Christie, Donald Trump or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[logroller]

I'm undecided between Chris Christie, Donald Trump or Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Undecided or abstaining? :laugh:

[fj1200]

2016 will you vote 4 a real conservative...

Will an electable one run?

[revelarts]

Like most Americans, I'm going to vote for the guy i like the most with the best shot of not screwing us over. I that means i have to go for my second bet, cause my first is not going to make it, i'll vote for the one that calls himself republican. Most likely it'll turn out to be Paul Ryan.

Which means yes, I'll vote for the NEO-con if i deem it necessary. Look at the election of 1912.

Edit; Hell, look at the last election, if it weren't for the libertarian Obama wouldn't be in office.So it's the libertarians fault that the republicans selected a a rhino neo-Con as candidates that the libertarians couldn't bring themselves to vote for? not really.


rev. There is a possibility none of us on this forum will even be here, or around by 2016. Asking anyone WHO they will vote for now, before Obama has his second inaugural party is like asking AL ROKER what time it will snow in December of next year.
Unless, of course. YOU KNOW THE ANSWER to that question already?
Yes we could all die i suppose, But frankly the slow and steady eriosion of the country is working just fine i don't think they really want to much drama. people have been crying "the end of America" from both sides since Reagan. Heck every President since reagan has literally been the "anti-Christ". Ronald Wilson Reagan "the numbers in his name equal 666",!!!:eek:!! Every president is going to take us into marshall law. I don't think so , seems slow and steady wins the race. let them vote left and right -sorta- while we slowly strip ever freedom and have them at war constantly over BS. Boiling frogs.

But you know another way to take your comment, It' might not be a bad idea to leave the U.S.. It's days seemed numbered as anything close to a free country.


I'm undecided between Chris Christie, Donald Trump or Arnold Schwarzenegger. OK suppose fiscal conservatives right. Trump is probably the most radical fiscal conservative though he's COMPLETELY untested in politics.
Not sure about any of there commitments to the Constitution. I'd have to investigate. but aren't they all social liberals. Pro-choice, Pro same sex marriage?



Will an electable one run?
they won't be electable if people don't get out and support them.
Obama wasn't electable. 1 term black senator from Chicago, friends with the Bill Ayers, from a "radical" black church, and questionable birth records, zero foreign policy experience, no name recognition?
Who decides whose "electable".
And will that always be the final criteria for our vote? Should we ever just vote on principal if we think " the pendulum has swung to far". Or do we vote by putting our fingers in the wind to see what we think others might do... like our congressmen do?


From you guys responses i'm guessing most republicans are going to continue to settle for Rhinos or neo-Cons who don't really take the constitution seriously.
I was just wonder if we have reached a tipping point yet. Doesn't look like it so far.

[taft2012]

The problem isn't the Republican Party, the problem is the conservative faction of the GOP. We constantly split the conservative vote and allow a RINO to secure the nomination with about 30% of the vote. Newt, Santorum, Cain, Perry, Paul....

We always fall for the bait & switch, focusing on which of the conservatives we like best and then watch the RINO slip through the pack and take the nomination, not with a majority, but with a plurality.

Since 1988, *NONE*, literally zero of the candidates I voted for in the GOP primaries went on to win the nomination.

The problem is not (as some conservatives would like to have us believe) that conservatives vote for RINOs in the general elections... the problem is we can't get our shit together in the primaries because by nature we're all individualistic self-centered egomaniacs. How about in 2016 we agree on a conservative standard bearer well in advance?

Lol. Like that could ever happen. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

they won't be electable if people don't get out and support them.
Obama wasn't electable. 1 term black senator from Chicago, friends with the Bill Ayers, from a "radical" black church, and questionable birth records, zero foreign policy experience, no name recognition?
Who decides whose "electable".
And will that always be the final criteria for our vote? Should we ever just vote on principal if we think " the pendulum has swung to far". Or do we vote by putting our fingers in the wind to see what we think others might do... like our congressmen do?


I was just wonder if we have reached a tipping point yet. Doesn't look like it so far.

The tipping point isn't an issue of Republicans nominating a true conservative if the general public isn't, or ever, at the point where they will be elected. So I was referring to "electable" in the overriding sense. But the first part is to get a true conservative through the primaries and then let the education of the electorate take place.

Now whether BO was electable, he obviously was but the major requirements to get elected in 2008 was to not be a Republican and retain the ability to draw breath. Check and check.

[tailfins]

The tipping point isn't an issue of Republicans nominating a true conservative if the general public isn't, or ever, at the point where they will be elected. So I was referring to "electable" in the overriding sense. But the first part is to get a true conservative through the primaries and then let the education of the electorate take place.

Now whether BO was electable, he obviously was but the major requirements to get elected in 2008 was to not be a Republican and retain the ability to draw breath. Check and check.

You mean a Marco Rubio, Mike Lee or a Ted Cruz versus a Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell, correct?

[fj1200]

You mean a Marco Rubio, Mike Lee or a Ted Cruz versus a Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell, correct?

Umm, maybe. I don't recall Lee or Cruz offhand. But we definitely need to avoid the whackadoodles like O'Donnell, the IN and AR candidates this last time around, and the CO candidate from 2 years ago. Those last all Senate candidates btw. The candidate needs to be an effective voice for the conservative viewpoint and why it is superior to the alternative.

[revelarts]

oo kkk
I guess i've been corrected.
there are very good reasons why, we HAVE TOO vote for RINOs and Neo-Cons.
Because we my not be able to a get "republican" in at all if we don't.
But... well so what's the point if we can't "win" with real conservative candidates?
We've already lost haven't we?

[mundame]

they won't be electable if people don't get out and support them.
Obama wasn't electable. 1 term black senator from Chicago, friends with the Bill Ayers, from a "radical" black church, and questionable birth records, zero foreign policy experience, no name recognition?
Who decides whose "electable".
And will that always be the final criteria for our vote? Should we ever just vote on principal if we think " the pendulum has swung to far". Or do we vote by putting our fingers in the wind to see what we think others might do... like our congressmen do?


From you guys responses i'm guessing most republicans are going to continue to settle for Rhinos or neo-Cons who don't really take the constitution seriously.
I was just wonder if we have reached a tipping point yet. Doesn't look like it so far.


What are you thinking a tipping point would tip into? I'm not understanding your point there.

As for the "electable" question, major sex perverts like Cain or Gingrich are not electable and they stink up the race: if that's the best the Republicans can do, people like me will just keep on not voting. I'm not voting for totally unacceptable candidates: that would be unethical. People who belong to incredibly weird religions are not electable (Romney), people who hide their money from taxes in three tax havens at once are not electable (Romney), people who want to go back to 1929 and outlaw even birth control are not electable, the whole entire creepazoid slate this year was unelectable. And didn't get elected, either. Sheeesh, what a bunch of losers.

At least now I see why it's important not to go the way Australia did and force everyone to vote. Because if there is a law that everyone has to vote, they can put up worthless monsters for candidates, why not? Whereas we can see they are worthless and just opt out of a crooked game. That is much better, as then the pro pols have to try at least a little harder. You couldn't tell it by this past election, God knows, but that's my theory, anyway.

[tailfins]

oo kkk
I guess i've been corrected.
there are very good reasons why, we HAVE TOO vote for RINOs and Neo-Cons.
Because we my not be able to a get "republican" in at all if we don't.
But... well so what's the point if we can't "win" with real conservative candidates?
We've already lost haven't we?

Whether you're selecting someone to fry burgers or or win an election, you don't want to select somebody who will burn the place down.

[revelarts]

Whether you're selecting someone to fry burgers or or win an election, you don't want to select somebody who will burn the place down.

But poisoned burgers are ok.
as long as we pick the poison.

Just don't burn the burger joint that'd be bad.

[cadet]

So it's the libertarians fault that the republicans selected a a rhino neo-Con as candidates that the libertarians couldn't bring themselves to vote for? not really.

Yes, for the Republican party not being uniform enough. If we spread the votes too thin, we may as well hand the presidency over to someone else.
I would rather have someone i mostly agree with then someone i flat out disagree with. Call me crazy, but yes, it's their fault. All he did was take votes away. If say, we decided to run one guy for the right side, we would have won by a landslide.

A guy you slightly disagree with vs. a guy who wants to screw you over. take your pick.

[revelarts]

What are you thinking a tipping point would tip into? I'm not understanding your point there.....

I mean a point where people say to themselves, something like 'it's so bad that we really can't afford to elect a half arse conservative ever again. even it it means i vote 3 party. It's just gone to far.'

CSM mentioned that it's the libertarians fault that Romney didn't win.
well if all the people who voted for Romney -as the lesser of 2 evils-- had said You know what i'm voting libertarian or for constitution party instead.
then the THEY might have won. or at least lost by a similar margin. And actually made rank and file politicians take note.

But to for to many that's stills to far fetched to consider.

P.S.
Mundame what republican candidate wanted to ban birth control?

[Abbey Marie]

oo kkk
I guess i've been corrected.
there are very good reasons why, we HAVE TOO vote for RINOs and Neo-Cons.
Because we my not be able to a get "republican" in at all if we don't.
But... well so what's the point if we can't "win" with real conservative candidates?
We've already lost haven't we?

That may be true, but I will always put my money on the horse that has a shot of winning, rather than the one who barely makes it out of the gate every time.

[Abbey Marie]

I mean a point where people say to themselves, something like 'it's so bad that we really can't afford to elect a half arse conservative ever again. even it it means i vote 3 party. It's just gone to far.'

CSM mentioned that it's the libertarians fault that Romney didn't win.
well if all the people who voted for Romney -as the lesser of 2 evils-- had said You know what i'm voting libertarian or for constitution party instead.
then the THEY might won. or at least lost by a similar margin. And acutually made rank and file politicians take note.

But to for to many that's stills to far fetched to consider.

P.S.
Mundame what republican candidate wanted to ban birth control?

If Romney had won, I believe he would have done his utmost to repeal Obamacare, and we wouldn't be worrying about our guns being taken away. While that may be half-arsed to you, I'd be thrilled with it right about now.

[mundame]

I mean a point where people say to themselves, something like 'it's so bad that really can't afford to elect a half arse conservative ever again. even it it means i vote 3 party. It's just gone to far.'

CSM mentioned that it's the libertarians fault that Romney didn't win.
well if all the people who voted for Romney -as the lesser of 2 evils-- had said You know what i'm voting libertarian or for constitution party instead.
then the THEY might won. or at least lost by a similar margin. And acutually made rank and file politicians take note.

But to for to many that's stills to far fetched to consider.

P.S.
Mundame what republican candidate wanted to ban birth control?


Santorum. He was my last hope (I had a very painful anybody-but-Romney primary season, they were all heartbreakers, unsupportable). Then Santorum comes out with this very silly statement about birth control. Migod. And then there were the two Republican senatorial candidates that liked rape ------- I was tearing my hair out. This hate-women thing Republicans got into --- darn, given that we are fully 55% of the electorate, I think that needs work before 2016.

I've decided I'm too old to get upset about this anymore. I'm not going to bother worrying about the next election(s) -- if they want to present one or two decent people I could vote for, I'll vote. If they want to present the electorate with 100% black Muslims and clowns and weirdos, fine, let them enjoy themselves without me.

I liked your thoughtful post. I am a Libertarian myself, though I would have been okay with voting for a non-Libertarian conservative if he were, you know, not in a weird religion and has dubious money situations and changes his opinions as often as his socks, like Romney was. But you make a good point, that there could be a tipping point when someone like me, instead of not voting or voting for the lesser of two evils (I don't vote for evils anymore), we might indeed just say, the heck with this, I'm voting for the Libertarian, why not? It's all pointless anyway.

I'll tell you what, revelarts, I think if there were any, ANY beginning of a move that way by the voting public? I think there could be a huge wave of switching over that would dissolve the politically bankrupt Republican party within weeks. That's what happened to the Whigs, after all, and happens every several decades in England to their parties.

[tailfins]

If Romney had won, I believe he would have done his utmost to repeal Obamacare, and we wouldn't be worrying about our guns being taken away. While that may be half-arsed to you, I'd be thrilled with it right about now.

Don't worry about guns being taken away, the House will hold the line. Obamacare will be significantly modified or repealed once it smothers off an economic recovery. One cannot repeal reality.

[revelarts]

Yes, for the Republican party not being uniform enough. If we spread the votes too thin, we may as well hand the presidency over to someone else.
I would rather have someone i mostly agree with then someone i flat out disagree with. Call me crazy, but yes, it's their fault. All he did was take votes away. If say, we decided to run one guy for the right side, we would have won by a landslide.

A guy you slightly disagree with vs. a guy who wants to screw you over. take your pick.

Well i didn't slightly disagree with Romney i REALLY disagreed with him.
the constituion being point one and frankly I've decided not to vote for anyone with a record that's contrary to their talk.

been there done that. Others still might still have faith in republican talk but after "no new taxes", and "no nation building" and "contracts with America" for smaller gov't ...that gets bigger. And waiting for abortion legislation for 25 years and getting bupkus. I'm reeeeaall tired of just "agreeing with" republican talking points. It's pointless IMO.

But OK
you guys would rather win with a horse that will promise some and delivery little than to lose and get mostly the same and a bit worse maybe.
Fine, ok, your not at the tipping point.

I just wonder when or if you ever will be.
Will it be in
2020
2024
2028
2032...
when will the real conservative you really want have a chance?

[revelarts]

Santorum. He was my last hope (I had a very painful anybody-but-Romney primary season, they were all heartbreakers, unsupportable). Then Santorum comes out with this very silly statement about birth control. Migod. And then there were the two Republican senatorial candidates that liked rape ------- I was tearing my hair out. This hate-women thing Republicans got into --- darn, given that we are fully 55% of the electorate, I think that needs work before 2016.

I've decided I'm too old to get upset about this anymore. I'm not going to bother worrying about the next election(s) -- if they want to present one or two decent people I could vote for, I'll vote. If they want to present the electorate with 100% black Muslims and clowns and weirdos, fine, let them enjoy themselves without me.

I liked your thoughtful post. I am a Libertarian myself, though I would have been okay with voting for a non-Libertarian conservative if he were, you know, not in a weird religion and has dubious money situations and changes his opinions as often as his socks, like Romney was. But you make a good point, that there could be a tipping point when someone like me, instead of not voting or voting for the lesser of two evils (I don't vote for evils anymore), we might indeed just say, the heck with this, I'm voting for the Libertarian, why not? It's all pointless anyway.

I'll tell you what, revelarts, I think if there were any, ANY beginning of a move that way by the voting public? I think there could be a huge wave of switching over that would dissolve the politically bankrupt Republican party within weeks. That's what happened to the Whigs, after all, and happens every several decades in England to their parties.



In a December 1995 Philadelphia Magazine article (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/PhillyMagSantorum.pdf) — which the Huffington Post pulled from Temple University archives — Santorum conceded that he “was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress… But it had never been something I thought about.” Asked why he changed his mind, he said that he “sat down and read the literature. Scientific literature,” only to correct himself and note that religion was a part of it too.
Elsewhere in the piece, an anonymous “prominent Republican active in Planned Parenthood” said that Santorum was identified in 1990 as a pro-choice lawmaker. “No one here had identified him as anti-choice,” the Republican said. More telling was the quote offered by Tom Allen, a Pittsburgh-based OBGYN who had co-founded the city’s first abortion clinic, delivered Santorum’s wife, Karen, and gone on to share an apartment with her.
“When Karen told me she was moving out,” Allen said, “she said, ‘You’d really like Rick. He’s a lot like you. He’s politically active and he’s pro-choice.’”



Santorum changed his stance on abortion I really wonder just how committed he was to the harsher lines he took, or if he wasn't just appealing to a certain group. he may have been serious though, his voting record was pretty solid Pro-life. as apposed to Romney's.
Sontorum just didn't seems serious to me. More like W. Bush, but with with lil more sense.

[cadet]

Well i didn't slightly disagree with Romney i REALLY disagreed with him.
the constituion being point one and frankly I've decided not to vote for anyone with a record that's contrary to their talk.

been there done that. Others still might still have faith in republican talk but after "no new taxes", and "no nation building" and "contracts with America" for smaller gov't ...that gets bigger. And waiting for abortion legislation for 25 years and getting bupkus. I'm reeeeaall tired of just "agreeing with" republican talking points. It's pointless IMO.

But OK
you guys would rather win with a horse that will promise some and delivery little than to lose and get mostly the same and a bit worse maybe.
Fine, ok, your not at the tipping point.

I just wonder when or if you ever will be.
Will it be in
2020
2024
2028
2032...
when will the real conservative you really want have a chance?

You wanna know what people got for voting libertarian? Voting for Obama.
It would have been all dandy and fine if it were just the libertarian, but it wasn't. So the votes were spread between two guys instead of one. And if you didn't notice, Romney only lost by a little bit. Now we're stuck with the moron again. And I'll be joining the Air Force under him. Great.

[mundame]

Voting for a Libertarian is not voting for Obama; it's voting for a Libertarian.

Not voting is not the same as voting for Obama; it's just not voting.

I don't know where people get the strange idea that doing the opposite of something is the same as doing that something.

We need clearer thinking, guys. If you don't do X, you haven't done X.

[jimnyc]

This hate-women thing Republicans got into

Having very distant stances on abortion and such doesn't mean they "hate" women. That's silly rhetoric.

[jimnyc]

The last good conservative I saw, I'm hoping Fred Thompson would consider running again - and actually wanting to and tries.

[tailfins]

Voting for a Libertarian is not voting for Obama; it's voting for a Libertarian.

Not voting is not the same as voting for Obama; it's just not voting.

I don't know where people get the strange idea that doing the opposite of something is the same as doing that something.

We need clearer thinking, guys. If you don't do X, you haven't done X.

Answer: Political fundraising letters.

[cadet]

Voting for a Libertarian is not voting for Obama; it's voting for a Libertarian.

Not voting is not the same as voting for Obama; it's just not voting.

I don't know where people get the strange idea that doing the opposite of something is the same as doing that something.

We need clearer thinking, guys. If you don't do X, you haven't done X.

Clearer thinking would be looking back at the election o 1912. If you didn't realize, the Bull Moose party was created to keep Taft from being in charge.
One guy is going to win, you may as well pool together votes instead of spreading them like butter on too much bread.

[revelarts]

http://www.boneville.net/pix/ride.with.osama.jpg


OK
Sure every vote does counts (if it's counted) but as i said before, if everyone had voted libertarian or Constitution party THEY would have won. so why didn't they just vote for them instead of the lesser of evils. A vote for Romney was a vote for Obama Cadet.

[mundame]

This whole "If you vote for X you are really voting for Y!" business is a way for people to say, "I OWN YOUR VOTE. If you are a conservative or a Republican or a Libertarian, you do not have a right to vote for ANYONE EXCEPT WHO I TELL YOU TO VOTE FOR ---- otherwise you are voting for Obama/Osama/the boogeyman and you are GUILTY."

This is all pernicious nonsense. Nobody gets to control my vote or anything else I do.

I say again: it's not voting for X when someone votes for Y. To say so is just an attempt to control more votes that you are entitled to, and I for one am not letting anyone at all do that.

[tailfins]

This whole "If you vote for X you are really voting for Y!" business is a way for people to say, "I OWN YOUR VOTE. If you are a conservative or a Republican or a Libertarian, you do not have a right to vote for ANYONE EXCEPT WHO I TELL YOU TO VOTE FOR ---- otherwise you are voting for Obama/Osama/the boogeyman and you are GUILTY."

This is all pernicious nonsense. Nobody gets to control my vote or anything else I do.

I say again: it's not voting for X when someone votes for Y. To say so is just an attempt to control more votes that you are entitled to, and I for one am not letting anyone at all do that.

You DO know there's a lot more to public policy or even elections than voting, right? From an elections standpoint there are so many ways to participate in a campaign. From a public policy point of view there's daily issue influence. Now is a good time to contact your elected officials regarding the debt ceiling.

[Robert A Whit]

OK, the good news nobody has said is that nine million fewer democrat votes went to Obama than in his first election.

I thought that was good news. Bear in mind, Obama won with too many lies told by his campaign.

They have no proven winners to run in 2016.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by mundame http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606676#post606676)
This whole "If you vote for X you are really voting for Y!" business is a way for people to say, "I OWN YOUR VOTE. If you are a conservative or a Republican or a Libertarian, you do not have a right to vote for ANYONE EXCEPT WHO I TELL YOU TO VOTE FOR ---- otherwise you are voting for Obama/Osama/the boogeyman and you are GUILTY."

This is all pernicious nonsense. Nobody gets to control my vote or anything else I do.

I say again: it's not voting for X when someone votes for Y. To say so is just an attempt to control more votes that you are entitled to, and I for one am not letting anyone at all do that.



Tailfins replies: You DO know there's a lot more to public policy or even elections than voting, right? From an elections standpoint there are so many ways to participate in a campaign. From a public policy point of view there's daily issue influence. Now is a good time to contact your elected officials regarding the debt ceiling.

She seems to be so self centered that she prefers losing the entire loaf of bread when she could get a slice of bread.

With Obama she got no slice nor loaf.

With Romney, at least she could have got some slices.
I can't comprehend the person so willing to get absolutely nothing.

And I favor libertarians. They believe in the written constitution.

[mundame]

She seems to be so self centered that she prefers losing the entire loaf of bread when she could get a slice of bread.



Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............................... .......are you calling me self-centered, Robert?

Because I'm dumping all the many bullies who can't post politely and with respect to me, at least. Name-calling is unacceptable to me.

I would prefer you were not one of the bullies, but you will decide to suit yourself, I hope.

[jimnyc]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............................... .......are you calling me self-centered, Robert?

Because I'm dumping all the many bullies who can't post politely and with respect to me, at least. Name-calling is unacceptable to me.

I would prefer you were not one of the bullies, but you will decide to suit yourself, I hope.

Can you tell us what makes someone a bully? What do they say that loses your respect and therefore no reply from you? I've remained endlessly polite to you, when I could, and it didn't seem to make a difference as to whether or not you replied to the difficult questions. You made it sound as if asking you for proof of something you repeated over and over was somehow bullying or playing a game. When someone makes statements of fact, and refuses to back it up, I call that being intellectually dishonest.

[mundame]

Can you tell us what makes someone a bully? What do they say that loses your respect and therefore no reply from you? I've remained endlessly polite to you, when I could, and it didn't seem to make a difference as to whether or not you replied to the difficult questions. You made it sound as if asking you for proof of something you repeated over and over was somehow bullying or playing a game. When someone makes statements of fact, and refuses to back it up, I call that being intellectually dishonest.


Call it whatever you like.

[jimnyc]

Call it whatever you like.

Fair enough. I won't waste my time on replies to you any further. I'm more interested in honest and fair debate.

[mundame]

That would probably be best. Thanks.

[Robert A Whit]

Mundame replies in part: I liked your thoughtful post. I am a Libertarian myself, though I would have been okay with voting for a non-Libertarian conservative if he were, you know, not in a weird religion and has dubious money situations and changes his opinions as often as his socks, like Romney was.

I do not appreciate this non thoughtful post. Not one bit. I don't call your church wierd. I don't know how people that never went to the LDS church can get off calling it wierd.

That is a taunt. An insult. A lot of super nice people attend that church every week. You won't find one of those school yard killers in our church. Can any of you name any Mormon that shot up a school?

Romney came up the hard way. Every dollar he amassed he spent time working for. The fact he could collect in his lifetime the annual earnings of Oprah Winfrey should not bother anybody. She makes in one year double what Mitt Romney has in total assets. She already has billions in assets. He only makes millions.

She will earn 450 million dollars while he brings in maybe 12 million dollars.

I don't hear this shit on her talk that I see on Romney.

Bush got shit on for staying the course. Romney has changed his mind on several things.

Hell I did it myself. Who among us has not changed their mind from the time they were 21 till today?

Give me a break. We all have changed our minds on something.

A true libertarian in my opinion is too tolerant to make that much of an issue.

You know something? Mitt Romney actually works hard to help others. His record of helping out community is very stark contrasted to Obama.

Obama tried to turn the good heart of Romney into a weapon to harm Romney.

I am ashamed to read a fellow libertarian talk about Romney that way.

While I support republicans as better than Democrats and since where I live no Libertarian has a chance to win, I must by default vote for republicans. They beat the devil out of what Democrats do to this country.

[jimnyc]

And it's worth repeating - someone, anyone, even a man having a strong abortion stance - DOES NOT mean they hate women. It simply means they have a strong abortion stance. It's more like a militant woman/lesbian, akin to Wind Song, who would make such ludicrous comments.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606683#post606683)
She seems to be so self centered that she prefers losing the entire loaf of bread when she could get a slice of bread.



Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............................... .......are you calling me self-centered, Robert?

Because I'm dumping all the many bullies who can't post politely and with respect to me, at least. Name-calling is unacceptable to me.

I would prefer you were not one of the bullies, but you will decide to suit yourself, I hope.


When you trash my religion, you trash me. When you tell untrue and unkind things about the LDS, you are in effect as you claim, acting like a bully. In this very thread well back, I had to endure you trashing the very fine group of people that attend the Mormon church.

However on this single matter.

Did you not see I said SEEMS?

I have read your claims you will simply allow an Obama to win because of some prejudice you have against Mitt Romney. We did not want or need Obama.

Then you say to the forum to hell with that. We will still suffer an Obama because you don't like Romney.

Well, do you like Obama better because that is what you got?

I don't believe when I put the word SEEMS there to have called you something. I would have used precise words and not said SEEMS, but a much more declaritive statement were I calling you something.

[Robert A Whit]

Well i didn't slightly disagree with Romney i REALLY disagreed with him.
the constituion being point one and frankly I've decided not to vote for anyone with a record that's contrary to their talk.

been there done that. Others still might still have faith in republican talk but after "no new taxes", and "no nation building" and "contracts with America" for smaller gov't ...that gets bigger. And waiting for abortion legislation for 25 years and getting bupkus. I'm reeeeaall tired of just "agreeing with" republican talking points. It's pointless IMO.

But OK
you guys would rather win with a horse that will promise some and delivery little than to lose and get mostly the same and a bit worse maybe.
Fine, ok, your not at the tipping point.

I just wonder when or if you ever will be.
Will it be in
2020
2024
2028
2032...
when will the real conservative you really want have a chance?

I believe that some of you, and it is not only you, decided to spite Romney and look what you ended up with!!!!!!!!!!!!

You might as well have voted for Obama if you did not vote for him.

People like you essentially allied with Democrats.

Obama lost 9 million voters over the first election. But I am in awe you prefer we suffer with Obama than to have a chance with Romney.

Amazing. I am in awe you don't mind having Obama but you would have minded having Romney.

Afeckinamazing.

[mundame]

When you trash my religion, you trash me. When you tell untrue and unkind things about the LDS, you are in effect as you claim, acting like a bully. In this very thread well back, I had to endure you trashing the very fine group of people that attend the Mormon church.

However on this single matter.

Did you not see I said SEEMS?

I have read your claims you will simply allow an Obama to win because of some prejudice you have against Mitt Romney. We did not want or need Obama.

Then you say to the forum to hell with that. We will still suffer an Obama because you don't like Romney.

Well, do you like Obama better because that is what you got?

I don't believe when I put the word SEEMS there to have called you something. I would have used precise words and not said SEEMS, but a much more declaritive statement were I calling you something.



You'll have to make up your own mind on whether you can live with my prejudice against the Mormon Church. I will understand if you put me on ignore for that, or for whatever you don't like about me, such as committing the sin of not voting for Romney. [Sigh]

And I'll consider what to do if you keep up the insults. I don't come here to be a punching bag for anyone, and I've decided the best thing to do is to discard all the bullies --- there are always a lot of bullies on every forum because they are open to the public and there are a lot of bad people in the public. Then I can see if there are enough decent people left to talk to. I think this could work for me in general: find big forums, take a few weeks to see who the bullies are, throw them away, see if there are good conversations possible with the people who are left.

This might result in less whining by me, for one thing..............optimally. No guarantees.

[mundame]

When you trash my religion, you trash me.


No, indeed, I only trash you when I trash you. Which I hope I do not usually do!

There are many adverse comments on the epidemic of homosexual pedophile Catholic priests on this forum (some by me) but I don't think any Catholic here supposes we are trashing them when we refer to these priests.

A whole lot of people think that when someone says something against something they believe in, that's an insult against them.

But actually, it's only an insult against you if I specifically insult you personally. That's how I think it works, anyway.

[tailfins]

Fair enough. I won't waste my time on replies to you any further. I'm more interested in honest and fair debate.

Since everybody can see your posts, post to the public, not to an individual. Try to put the identity of the poster out of your mind*, and focus on the subject matter.

*Since you are already out of your mind, I know you can accomplish this.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by mundame http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606665#post606665)
Voting for a Libertarian is not voting for Obama; it's voting for a Libertarian.

Not voting is not the same as voting for Obama; it's just not voting.

I don't know where people get the strange idea that doing the opposite of something is the same as doing that something.

We need clearer thinking, guys. If you don't do X, you haven't done X.



Then Cadet replied: Clearer thinking would be looking back at the election o 1912. If you didn't realize, the Bull Moose party was created to keep Taft from being in charge.
One guy is going to win, you may as well pool together votes instead of spreading them like butter on too much bread.

We got Bill Clinton because of Ross Perot supporters. They also got Bill Clinton and they did not get Ross Perot.

They must be just like those that bet on horses that the odds of winning are so long that very rarely do they win.

To the anti Romney and pro Ross Perot crowd ...

Stop acting as if your vote did not help Clinton and later Obama.

How can any voter be so dumb as to not take into account the odds of winning a political race?

I read a poster say she liked Santorum.

I don't get that.

Rick is a very nice man even though he is part of a religion I don't accept and to some they claim it is wierd, though I never do that, but the man was only a Senator.

This country has a poor record of Senators becoming presidents.

Of all the candidates that ran as republicans, only three I can think of instantly had experience.

We had Romney, we had the gov of TX and the former Gov of Utah, the other Mormon as candidates.

The balance had been something else.

Why pick a Governor?

Let me put it into my airplane pilots lingo.

If you want to go on a flight, do you pick somebody that worked where they sold airplanes to fly you around?

Do you get some person that changed spark plugs?

No, you get a fully trained pilot that shows you he has lots of experience.

But suppose that pilot flies the Piper Cub.

Do you fly with him if the airplane is a Lear Jet?

NO. You want that piper cub pilot to have been trained in the Lear Jet and proved he can fly that airplane.

Then you get to the Lear Jet pilot. What if he announces he is taking you up in the Boeing 787?

Will you board his airplane?

NO!!!!!!!

You want only the pilot that spent the long time flying the jumbo jets to fly you in the new airplane.

Why some person will prefer the untested, such as Santorum over the proven Romney simply baffles me. I don't get that thinking at all.

What even Obama proved to me over and over is how the public is deluded to think some person that voted in the Senate automatically suddenly knows how to run the nation.

The two jobs are not alike.

[Kathianne]

This was a reply to Mundame's post to Robert about her prejudice against Mormons. She went on again about Catholic priests & pedophilia. Her stats are off by an astounding percentage, but that IS what prejudices are about.

Actually some of do take exception with your prejudices. Regarding pedophilia and priests:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195145976/qid=1018031507/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_67_2/102-6224020-8904105

regarding anti-Catholicism which you regularly contribute to:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Anti-Catholicism-Last-Acceptable-Prejudice/dp/0195176049/ref=la_B001IGLXQ0_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1358202240&sr=1-12

[Robert A Whit]

This nation is full of unqualified voters who vote for some leader for the wrong reasons.

Something is terribly wrong in this country.

We have such ignorant voters that they actually vote with not a bit of common sense of any sort.

They seem ignorant of qualifications for jobs.

The same person who would never allow some guy who worked in the lab of a hospital to perform surgery on them allows some dude who is not qualified to be president get their vote.

AMAZING

I chalk this up to poor education.

They are smart enough to not let the X-Ray tech perform that heart operation, but they think some Senator knows management of an entire country?

We got Obama with that thinking.

Then some so called republicans decided we would do the same thing.

We would make the mistake of putting in some other Senator since he was a republican.

AMAZING

Think about this.

Governors at least have some track record. We can see what Bush had done in TX so we had something to study.

We had a chance to get Huntsman who also is a Mormon and also ran a state. I think when he got hired by Obama, he settled that for a lot of voters. They saw him as Obama's man.

Then poor Governor Rick Perry of TX. He got caught on TV with a memory lapse. Some marked him down as not competent.

But if we went by who is competent, Obama would not have got the job at all. And he is still not competent yet there he sits on his throne.

AMAZING

[Robert A Whit]

And it's worth repeating - someone, anyone, even a man having a strong abortion stance - DOES NOT mean they hate women. It simply means they have a strong abortion stance. It's more like a militant woman/lesbian, akin to Wind Song, who would make such ludicrous comments.

When a person sees the one being aborted as a human being, one does not see said human as the woman's body.

(Let me housekeep. I agree with Jim on this issue) so moving on .....

When she had eggs, we can see that as her body. She produces eggs.

But she did not produce a baby. She only played a role in this. The male also played a role.

Together they created a child and she is the steward of that child.

It is not human nature to see such a child as non human.

When she wants the abortion, she is not doing to to eradicate some eggs.

She does it to kill a human. She realizes that if she does nothing, the child will need a name. The child will grow up. The child will have childhood diseases.

But to treat the child as if it is her leg, or lung or breast is crazy talk. (body part)

It would be awesome if the survivors of moms who had intentions to abort but did not could command the public audience.

A young woman that lives in TX now works for a major TV station as a reporter. I first ran into her when she was in high school. She graduated a university in TX and one reason she is a reporter is to get stories out. She survived a mom that had full intentions to abort her.

The mom got some conscience or she would never be on TV. That mother saw her as a baby.

Today this remarkable young lady is married. I have to check with her to get an update.

She could have been the victim of some woman who saw her as her body part.

She does not see it that way at all.

By the way, she is so smart, she votes republican.

[Robert A Whit]

As to Fred Thompson Jimmy, the man has little experience.

I know, he is a nice man. I am sure of that. But he has no actual experience.

We need to try to educate the public that it takes a Governor to have had experience at the job of governing.

They may not be a good governor so do not get elected. But we need men or women that have plenty of hands on experience at the job of running government.

Sarah Palin was a great pick since she had some very sound experience at governing. But we let the media rule her out.

She had more actual experience than did John McCain.

Take picking a cabinet. She had done it. McCain has never picked a cabinet to run a government. Not in his state or even in a city.

Obama sucks partly because of his ideology but more that he still ranks as an amateur at managing goverment. He blunders all the time. The media covers it up very well though.

[jimnyc]

Since everybody can see your posts, post to the public, not to an individual. Try to put the identity of the poster out of your mind*, and focus on the subject matter.

*Since you are already out of your mind, I know you can accomplish this.

Making up "facts" about gun murders. Making up "facts" about guns, over and over. Making up "Adam Lanza appreciation day" to vilify members on this board. Posting pictures and comparing members here to these scumbag mass murderers, simply because they defend gun rights.

Sometimes it is difficult to focus on subject matter like that.

One would think it's a tad bullyish to continually place fine members here on the same plane as these murderers.

I tried over and over to politely engage, and got ignored. Then when I repeat a question, it makes me a bully. Funny.

[mundame]

Maki
I tried over and over to politely engage, and got ignored. Then when I repeat a question, it makes me a bully. Funny.

No, that isn't "politely engaging," it's badgering. It's harassing. You have to let people believe what they believe, and not try to talk them out of it by harassing them over and over and over again.

[jimnyc]

As to Fred Thompson Jimmy, the man has little experience.

I know, he is a nice man. I am sure of that. But he has no actual experience.

We need to try to educate the public that it takes a Governor to have had experience at the job of governing.

Think of the candidates running as of late; Palin, McCain, Kerry, Bush, Romney. - Some governors and mostly senators...

Fred Thompson was a great attorney, and even was involved in Watergate. He was a successful lobbyist. He was a 2 term senator. I think his experience and involvement in Washington is comparable if not better than the majority of politicians that have run in the past 20 years or so.

Read about his career - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson

[jimnyc]

No, that isn't "politely engaging," it's badgering. It's harassing. You have to let people believe what they believe, and not try to talk them out of it by harassing them over and over and over again.

When someone makes up lies, it's up to the other person to point this out and/or prove it. Call it whatever you please, but I've pointed this out on NO LESS than 3 occasions now. THREE PROVEN LIES and one of which you even admit to, which was despicable.

So yes, when you post something, I take it with a grain of salt and will look for more information for confirmation. You think we should let your crap stand as if it's gospel. Sorry, I'll politely ask several times within a discussion for factual links and such. But if that person tries to continue a ruse, passing off clear lies as facts, I will go out of my way to point it out.

Don't LIE and you won't have people asking you for links to back them up.

[tailfins]

Making up "facts" about gun murders. Making up "facts" about guns, over and over. Making up "Adam Lanza appreciation day" to vilify members on this board. Posting pictures and comparing members here to these scumbag mass murderers, simply because they defend gun rights.

Sometimes it is difficult to focus on subject matter like that.

One would think it's a tad bullyish to continually place fine members here on the same plane as these murderers.

I tried over and over to politely engage, and got ignored. Then when I repeat a question, it makes me a bully. Funny.

Maybe that's the problem. Besides, ridicule is more fun.

[mundame]

When someone makes up lies, it's up to the other person to point this out and/or prove it. Call it whatever you please, but I've pointed this out on NO LESS than 3 occasions now. THREE PROVEN LIES and one of which you even admit to, which was despicable.

So yes, when you post something, I take it with a grain of salt and will look for more information for confirmation. You think we should let your crap stand as if it's gospel. Sorry, I'll politely ask several times within a discussion for factual links and such. But if that person tries to continue a ruse, passing off clear lies as facts, I will go out of my way to point it out.

Don't LIE and you won't have people asking you for links to back them up.


You don't want it to be true that many, many of the rampage shooters used AR-15 assault rifles; but they did. All the state police and media report this and I went to the trouble of linking to many of these reports once, but you won't believe assault rifles killed anyone if God Himself signed an affadavit. I don't know what you suppose the killers REALLY did, maybe they were werewolves and used their teeth.

You want everything to be fine and there aren't any mass murderers and they didn't use any guns you like and everything is really all nice and there are no problems happening. I don't see how you can keep arguing that there is no problem, nobody used assault rifles, nobody used AR-15s, but apparently that's what you want and that's what you are going to say is true till the cows come home.

I could look up all the copious evidence yet again, reported by the police and news everywhere, that says exactly what weapons were used in each of the ever-increasing number of cases, and post it over and over and over again, but you would still keep saying it's a lie, nobody ever shot anyone, no assault rifles were used, no children were killed, everything is just fine, no problem.

If that's what you want to believe, knock yourself out. Enjoy. There's nothing I need to do about it.

[jimnyc]

No, what I want is the truth and facts. How can you possibly toss "facts" out there about guns if you really don't know the facts? If you do know them, they should be able to post. It doesn't matter what YOU think or what I think, what matters is the facts. When discussing something that involved millions of guns and countless victims, I don't think that touching on statistics is asking too much - unless of course they are made up.

Not a single person EVER said "there is no problem" or that things are fine or that there aren't mass murderers. It simply was NEVER stated and this is yet another example of how you just make things up and expect others to believe it. People think there is a problem, but it stems from elsewhere. I believe EVERYONE knows there are mass murderers out there. People know that certain guns were used in violent assaults and murders in the USA, just that it wasn't only an AR15. Not a single person here has ever downplayed the violence and deaths. People differ on the root cause, and of course as to whether less guns would resolve an issue. Sorry, just another lie.

You say you CAN look up and post certain things, then why don't you? You certainly haven't yet. How can you judge how others would react to solid proof when you haven't given any? All that's ever been discussed is solely 3 crimes. Of course if I am wrong, and you have a reason to judge others based on the mountain of proof you posted - post it RIGHT HERE again for all to see. You said you did so already, a link to these posts or post will suffice.

Fact is, you don't know what an AK47 is. You are clueless as to what an AR15 is. You wouldn't know an M4 if it ran naked down your road. But you should be able to post whatever bogus facts and incorrect classifications and abilities - and we should "let people believe what they believe" and not question such information? That's ridiculous.

And then when you get frustrated by people calling you out on your bogus information, you start making claims that they want to celebrate the Newtown killings by having an "Adam Lanza appreciation day". And when that doesn't work, you post pictures of these murdering filth and claim they are certain members here.

You claim to not like bullying, name calling or I guess mean people in general - but it's OK to make up that kind of stuff about people, just because you were asked to give proof of the laughable things you post?

[tailfins]

No, what I want is the truth and facts. How can you possibly toss "facts" out there about guns if you really don't know the facts? If you do know them, they should be able to post. It doesn't matter what YOU think or what I think, what matters is the facts. When discussing something that involved millions of guns and countless victims, I don't think that touching on statistics is asking too much - unless of course they are made up.

Not a single person EVER said "there is no problem" or that things are fine or that there aren't mass murderers. It simply was NEVER stated and this is yet another example of how you just make things up and expect others to believe it. People think there is a problem, but it stems from elsewhere. I believe EVERYONE knows there are mass murderers out there. People know that certain guns were used in violent assaults and murders in the USA, just that it wasn't only an AR15. Not a single person here has ever downplayed the violence and deaths. People differ on the root cause, and of course as to whether less guns would resolve an issue. Sorry, just another lie.

You say you CAN look up and post certain things, then why don't you? You certainly haven't yet. How can you judge how others would react to solid proof when you haven't given any? All that's ever been discussed is solely 3 crimes. Of course if I am wrong, and you have a reason to judge others based on the mountain of proof you posted - post it RIGHT HERE again for all to see. You said you did so already, a link to these posts or post will suffice.

Fact is, you don't know what an AK47 is. You are clueless as to what an AR15 is. You wouldn't know an M4 if it ran naked down your road. But you should be able to post whatever bogus facts and incorrect classifications and abilities - and we should "let people believe what they believe" and not question such information? That's ridiculous.

And then when you get frustrated by people calling you out on your bogus information, you start making claims that they want to celebrate the Newtown killings by having an "Adam Lanza appreciation day". And when that doesn't work, you post pictures of these murdering filth and claim they are certain members here.

You claim to not like bullying, name calling or I guess mean people in general - but it's OK to make up that kind of stuff about people, just because you were asked to give proof of the laughable things you post?

Assholes have the thinnest skins.

[jimnyc]

Assholes have the thinnest skins.

Are you calling me an asshole in some indirect fashion, you dirty bastard? I know psychology when I see it! LOL

[Kathianne]

When someone makes up lies, it's up to the other person to point this out and/or prove it. Call it whatever you please, but I've pointed this out on NO LESS than 3 occasions now. THREE PROVEN LIES and one of which you even admit to, which was despicable.

So yes, when you post something, I take it with a grain of salt and will look for more information for confirmation. You think we should let your crap stand as if it's gospel. Sorry, I'll politely ask several times within a discussion for factual links and such. But if that person tries to continue a ruse, passing off clear lies as facts, I will go out of my way to point it out.

Don't LIE and you won't have people asking you for links to back them up.

I hate to pile on here, but not so long ago above, she told Robert basically to accept her dislike of his religion, justifying it by her also discrimination against the Catholic Church, focusing on the 'huge percentage of pedophile priests.' I put some links to a study by an Episcopal professor that did study on percentages of pedophile priests, not outside the realm of percentage in all professions that provide possible access to youngsters. Indeed if she read it, would find that both teachers and coaches are accused and convicted at higher rates than priests. But as she seems consistent, facts don't matter.

[tailfins]

Are you calling me an asshole in some indirect fashion, you dirty bastard? I know psychology when I see it! LOL

I would never call you an asshole in an indirect fashion, asshole.

[jimnyc]

I would never call you an asshole in an indirect fashion, asshole.

That's cool, being direct about your hatred for me is cool and all, but just don't be sneaky about it! :poke:

[aboutime]

Assholes have the thinnest skins.



So, that explains why ALL OF US can SEE THRU YOU!:lol:

[Robert A Whit]

Think of the candidates running as of late; Palin, McCain, Kerry, Bush, Romney. - Some governors and mostly senators...

Fred Thompson was a great attorney, and even was involved in Watergate. He was a successful lobbyist. He was a 2 term senator. I think his experience and involvement in Washington is comparable if not better than the majority of politicians that have run in the past 20 years or so.

Read about his career - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson

Palin by all accounts was a very good governor. Bush also was a very good governor. And GW Bush was very intelligent as well. Romney had good ratings as governor. So did Huntsman and ditto Rick Perry.

I am speaking of running government. Not the crap politicans pulled on them.

I agree on Fred up to a point. I like the man. I hoped he would run. But then I got to thinking, but the man has not managed large government operations.

Maybe he could. But they said that about Obama too. Obama has been terrible at running government. We can't afford to mimic the Democrats.

[Abbey Marie]

As the next 4 years unfold, no doubt more and more folks will wish they had elected any of the Republican primary candidates.

:eek:

[aboutime]

As the next 4 years unfold, no doubt more and more folks will wish they had elected any of the Republican primary candidates.

:eek:


Abbey. Quite honestly. I am worried about HOW the next 4 years unfold. The fact that Obama won a 2nd term didn't take away any of the threats all of us were aware of....prior to the election, and how OUR CHILDREN, and GRAND CHILDREN are already IN DEBT.

We have to stay strong, and stand by with Only the Truth if we want to preserve Our Nation.

[Robert A Whit]

I hate to pile on here, but not so long ago above, she told Robert basically to accept her dislike of his religion, justifying it by her also discrimination against the Catholic Church, focusing on the 'huge percentage of pedophile priests.' I put some links to a study by an Episcopal professor that did study on percentages of pedophile priests, not outside the realm of percentage in all professions that provide possible access to youngsters. Indeed if she read it, would find that both teachers and coaches are accused and convicted at higher rates than priests. But as she seems consistent, facts don't matter.

Why did she want and approve of Rick Santorum given he is a Catholic then?

To date, on all forums I have ever been on, not one time have I ripped the Catholics for the pedophilie priests actions. I blame the priests and not the church.

She is hostile to my church all the time. But she said she may ignore me if i stand up for the church or myself?

[Robert A Whit]

Are you calling me an asshole in some indirect fashion, you dirty bastard? I know psychology when I see it! LOL

How the hell did you find out he does not wash is what I want to find out. ROFLMAO

[tailfins]

How the hell did you find out he does not wash is what I want to find out. ROFLMAO

WOW! The old fart comes alive. I didn't see that coming. Two hits with one shot. Or is it two shots with one hit.

[aboutime]

WOW! The old fart comes alive. I didn't see that coming. Two hits with one shot. Or is it two shots with one hit.


tailfins. When was the last time, or first time anyone ever worried your cleanliness habits?:laugh:

[Robert A Whit]

WOW! The old fart comes alive. I didn't see that coming. Two hits with one shot. Or is it two shots with one hit.

And when I was a lad of 7, to me a 15 year old boy was .... almost an adult. LOL

Now I notice that not all over that age even act like they are adults.

Yup, I was told I was an old fart when I was perhaps 33 or so.

I have long been accused of being more mature.

LMAO

[taft2012]

In 2000 a lot of liberals voted their ideologies and their consciences and voted for the more liberal candidate Ralph Nader. Those votes proved to be the margin of victory for President Bush. I'm sure that in retrospect a lot of Nader liberals spent the Bush years regretting those Nader votes.

Likewise, I strongly considered voting for Pat Buchanan in 2000. Luckily I didn't and many like me didn't. Otherwise I would have had an Al Gore presidency on my conscience.

[revelarts]

But OK
you guys would rather win with a horse that will promise some and delivery little than to lose and get mostly the same and a bit worse maybe.
Fine, ok, your not at the tipping point.

I just wonder when or if you ever will be.
Will it be in
2020
2024
2028
2032...
when will the real conservative you really want have a chance?

so far the answers i've gotten here , summed up are
" ...you help Obama win ..."...you help Clinton win" "... look at Nader..." "..look at Perot..." "...no good conservatives..." "...better a little than nothing..."


So is it safe to say some of you are ready to vote for RINOs and Neo-Cons for the rest of your lives.
Unless there's Marshall law , THEN it will be time to get radical.
But until then, a slow walk toward bigger gov't and less constitution is OK as long as it slower?

IMO that's what we vote for every time we vote for RINOs and NeoCons.
A slow walk off the cliff.

It may not be realistic to think that people will see the danger and VOTE for change while we still can but the words of Patrick Henry come to mind. We are moving to a similar position. were not there but have any of you, in your life time, seen the country ready to split into states because the federal gov't has become so controlling? Or so many people talking about literally fighting the federal gov't?
Is it all just BS talk? Can the problem be fixed by a series of RINO and Neo-Con presidents.
If we voted in RINOs or Neo-Con Presidents for the Next 20 years will we get the Constitution back?
If you think so you haven't been paying attention.

...it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss....
...They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power...

[bingster]

Unless your party changes I believe this is going to happen:

Your best candidate (as of today, obviously) is Chris Christie. The guy has about a 65% favorability rating with Democrats even.
If he has to suffer the same kind of primary Romney had to go through (extreme right wing), he'll either lose the primary or have to move so far to the right he'll lose credibility and lose the general like Romney did (although he much more conservative than Romney was). Hopefully, he won't have the economy to run against.

If you end up with a tea party wack job. It's over.

You currently don't have anyone else as heavyweight as Christie (sorry for the pun). I think it would be too easy to beat Bush, also.

Like Gingrich says (I hate quoting Gingrich), a Chris Christie vs. Hilary Clinton will be the heavyweight fight of the century.

[tailfins]

Unless your party changes I believe this is going to happen:

Your best candidate (as of today, obviously) is Chris Christie. The guy has about a 65% favorability rating with Democrats even.
If he has to suffer the same kind of primary Romney had to go through (extreme right wing), he'll either lose the primary or have to move so far to the right he'll lose credibility and lose the general like Romney did (although he much more conservative than Romney was). Hopefully, he won't have the economy to run against.

If you end up with a tea party wack job. It's over.

You currently don't have anyone else as heavyweight as Christie (sorry for the pun). I think it would be too easy to beat Bush, also.

Like Gingrich says (I hate quoting Gingrich), a Chris Christie vs. Hilary Clinton will be the heavyweight fight of the century.

If your scenario is true, the GOP should just disband and hope that creates a vacuum for competent conservative leadership. Even if such an extreme thing were to happen, I encourage anyone thinking of giving up hope to study the recent history of the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Abbey Marie]

Unless your party changes I believe this is going to happen:

Your best candidate (as of today, obviously) is Chris Christie. The guy has about a 65% favorability rating with Democrats even.
If he has to suffer the same kind of primary Romney had to go through (extreme right wing), he'll either lose the primary or have to move so far to the right he'll lose credibility and lose the general like Romney did (although he much more conservative than Romney was). Hopefully, he won't have the economy to run against.

If you end up with a tea party wack job. It's over.

You currently don't have anyone else as heavyweight as Christie (sorry for the pun). I think it would be too easy to beat Bush, also.

Like Gingrich says (I hate quoting Gingrich), a Chris Christie vs. Hilary Clinton will be the heavyweight fight of the century.

What was "extreme right wing" about the primary?

[tailfins]

What was "extreme right wing" about the primary?

MSNBC's description of it as they cheerlead for the Democrats.

[Robert A Whit]

I recall this happening during Clinton too.

Then what happened?

Democrats had to change their spots?

ROFLMAO

They NEVER changed their spots.

They made all kinds of excuses.

But they kept up trashing Bush till it became the Obama modus operandi.

Don't worry, republicans shall rise again.

We always do.

Just like Democrats do.

[Robert A Whit]

Revelarts admits: so far the answers i've gotten here , summed up are
" ...you help Obama win ..."...you help Clinton win" "... look at Nader..." "..look at Perot..." "...no good conservatives..." "...better a little than nothing..."


So is it safe to say some of you are ready to vote for RINOs and Neo-Cons for the rest of your lives.
Unless there's Marshall law , THEN it will be time to get radical.
But until then, a slow walk toward bigger gov't and less constitution is OK as long as it slower?

IMO that's what we vote for every time we vote for RINOs and NeoCons.
A slow walk off the cliff.

It may not be realistic to think that people will see the danger and VOTE for change while we still can but the words of Patrick Henry come to mind. We are moving to a similar position. were not there but have any of you, in your life time, seen the country ready to split into states because the federal gov't has become so controlling? Or so many people talking about literally fighting the federal gov't?
Is it all just BS talk? Can the problem be fixed by a series of RINO and Neo-Con presidents.
If we voted in RINOs or Neo-Con Presidents for the Next 20 years will we get the Constitution back?
If you think so you haven't been paying attention.



I would rather not.

But even worse is Democrats. What is your solution to them?

Who has the cash to win?

Obama got plain lucky.

Lucky that too many of the public jumped on the "Beat up on GW Bush gravy train"

Gingrich is currently working on an in depth and thoughtul analysis to what the public really wants.

Can Obama and his motley crew get away with taking credit if the economy improves?

It may improve but based on the study of the 1930s, there is no guarantee since the Obama solution is to make business his enemy. FDR did it too.

Workers can be replaced by robots. Even in drug stores robots can accurately fill prescriptions. Everywhere you look, busy young men and women are creating robots to do almost all tasks. Even talking robots so you may go to Starbucks to be served by a robot.

The day of labor is closing it seems. I don't quite know what to make of it but Democrats will have a damned hard time selling their messages to robots.

[avatar4321]

Perhaps it would be wiser to not worry about 2016 and instead focus on changing the hearts and minds of the people.

[aboutime]

The question should be. Will the one person who knows for certain WHAT 2016 will bring. Please stand up?

Is there anyone on this forum, in this nation, or anywhere around the World who knows WHAT 2016 will bring?

If that person is alive, and can prove his, or her Prognostications for the year 2016 are true.

Why is anyone asking WHO any of us will vote for, when not one of us knows...WHO will be running???

[Robert A Whit]

Perhaps it would be wiser to not worry about 2016 and instead focus on changing the hearts and minds of the people.

I am 74. Do you honestly think I am worried about 2016?

LOL

Let me tell you what happened on AOL.

A man who clearly was very educated and a nice left winger in my opinion posted quite a bit. Suddenly one poster declared he had just died.

Holy cow.

I did not know he was sick.

Turns out he was a professor at a university in TX and well known. It was told by an article from a TX newspaper obit. I guess he was so important he got column space and a nice article about him.

He was posting one minute and it seemed like the next day he suddenly died.

You can never promise anybody you will be here tomorrow.

I worry about this moment.

Tomorrow, not so much.

[tailfins]

I am 74. Do you honestly think I am worried about 2016?

LOL

Let me tell you what happened on AOL.

A man who clearly was very educated and a nice left winger in my opinion posted quite a bit. Suddenly one poster declared he had just died.

Holy cow.

I did not know he was sick.

Turns out he was a professor at a university in TX and well known. It was told by an article from a TX newspaper obit. I guess he was so important he got column space and a nice article about him.

He was posting one minute and it seemed like the next day he suddenly died.

You can never promise anybody you will be here tomorrow.

I worry about this moment.

Tomorrow, not so much.

How do you know you won't be around for another 26 years to see 100? The youngest member or even lurker of this forum might not see 2014 alive.

[cadet]

How do you know you won't be around for another 26 years to see 100? The youngest member or even lurker of this forum might not see 2014 alive.

Was that a threat to me? :eek:

[taft2012]

so far the answers i've gotten here , summed up are
" ...you help Obama win ..."...you help Clinton win" "... look at Nader..." "..look at Perot..." "...no good conservatives..." "...better a little than nothing..."


So is it safe to say some of you are ready to vote for RINOs and Neo-Cons for the rest of your lives.
Unless there's Marshall law , THEN it will be time to get radical.
But until then, a slow walk toward bigger gov't and less constitution is OK as long as it slower?

IMO that's what we vote for every time we vote for RINOs and NeoCons.
A slow walk off the cliff.


The Republican establishment picks their candidate and *STICKS* with him. They were with Romney from day 1. Huntsman might have looked good to a lot of them as well, but they had picked Romney and stuck with him.

Conservatives, by their ideological nature, are strong individuals. If a candidate doesn't totally please them on even one issue, throughout his entire political life, he often gets thrown overboard. Even if he is the most conservative candidate in the GOP lineup.

I estimate the GOP establishment has roughly 35% of the party locked up nationally, giving the conservative wing about 60% to 65%. We *can* pick the candidate, if just for once we agreed to play ball as a team amongst ourselves like the establishment does.

Your "answer" proposes exacerbating this situation and expanding on individualism amongst conservatives, with everyone picking up their balls and going straight home. In fact, the answer is the complete opposite; the answer is an organized conservative movement.

But that won't happen because the ideal conservative candidate does not exist. Oddly enough, the RINOs never seem to have a problem finding their ideal candidate.

BTW: it's "martial law", not "Marshall law."

[mundame]

The Republican establishment picks their candidate and *STICKS* with him. They were with Romney from day 1. Huntsman might have looked good to a lot of them as well, but they had picked Romney and stuck with him.

Conservatives, by their ideological nature, are strong individuals. If a candidate doesn't totally please them on even one issue, throughout his entire political life, he often gets thrown overboard. Even if he is the most conservative candidate in the GOP lineup.

I estimate the GOP establishment has roughly 35% of the party locked up nationally, giving the conservative wing about 60% to 65%. We *can* pick the candidate, if just for once we agreed to play ball as a team amongst ourselves like the establishment does.

Your "answer" proposes exacerbating this situation and expanding on individualism amongst conservatives, with everyone picking up their balls and going straight home. In fact, the answer is the complete opposite; the answer is an organized conservative movement.

But that won't happen because the ideal conservative candidate does not exist. Oddly enough, the RINOs never seem to have a problem finding their ideal candidate.



Good post, IMO. Yes, the political establishment such as Karl Rove, the moneymen, lock it all up beforehand. They were indeed with Romney all the way, and I even suspect that's why they had such awful weirdos in the field, so he could show up well against them. Well, I actually think they only showed up because it was a "sacrificial lamb" election the pros knew they would lose --- though Romney came a lot closer to winning than I bet they expected.

The big theme of candidate choosing in the Republican Party is "last man standing." They always, always pick the old guy who came in second in previous campaigns: hence John McCain and Mitt Romney. Reagan, too. I don't think there are any old guys left at this time! The GOP has to start over in 2016.

[taft2012]

If I had to guess at this very moment, I'd guess the GOP establishment is going to push Lindsay Graham in 2016.

The establishment reserves the veep spot for conservatives only, so the notion of resurrecting Paul Ryan as a presidential candidate doesn't seem likely to me.

[mundame]

If I had to guess at this very moment, I'd guess the GOP establishment is going to push Lindsay Graham in 2016.

The establishment reserves the veep spot for conservatives only, so the notion of resurrecting Paul Ryan as a presidential candidate doesn't seem likely to me.

Paul Ryan.........interesting. Sort of young for it.

Lindsay Graham! He is an older man now, but there are persistent rumors he is homosexual (he has never had a wife) and I don't think conservatives would accept him for that reason.

Graham also never saw a war he didn't like; he has always argued for a strong military, but the nation is war-weary and I don't think they'll want a president who would certainly take us straight into several wars at once. Well, ANOTHER president who will take us into several wars at once; they all do that, lately. And he's only a senator.

I have always liked Graham. However, I don't think he'll make a president. I think they'll thin down Christie some and run him -- they have to, he weighs a LOT more than John Candy, who died of obesity at a young age. There's a recent New Yorker cartoon, shows Death with his scythe standing in front of an apartment door, and someone inside must have asked him who is it, because he says, "Take a wild guess, butter boy!"

[revelarts]

The Republican establishment picks their candidate and *STICKS* with him. They were with Romney from day 1. Huntsman might have looked good to a lot of them as well, but they had picked Romney and stuck with him.

Conservatives, by their ideological nature, are strong individuals. If a candidate doesn't totally please them on even one issue, throughout his entire political life, he often gets thrown overboard. Even if he is the most conservative candidate in the GOP lineup.

I estimate the GOP establishment has roughly 35% of the party locked up nationally, giving the conservative wing about 60% to 65%. We *can* pick the candidate, if just for once we agreed to play ball as a team amongst ourselves like the establishment does.

Your "answer" proposes exacerbating this situation and expanding on individualism amongst conservatives, with everyone picking up their balls and going straight home. In fact, the answer is the complete opposite; the answer is an organized conservative movement.

But that won't happen because the ideal conservative candidate does not exist. Oddly enough, the RINOs never seem to have a problem finding their ideal candidate.

BTW: it's "martial law", not "Marshall law."

Conservative Don't stick, MOST vote for the republican RINO Neo-Con in the end.
I was a Ron Paul supporter i didn't agree with everything he had to say. But he and Huntsmen where the only ones in the bunch that seemed to take the constitution seriously.
the problem is many Republicans like the Neo-Con agenda, and like a lil RINO in there candidates.

Phil Graham doesn't give a flip about the constitution. He'll indefinitely jail without charge anybody he thinks smell like a terrorist. and some republicans love that.

the tea party has been co-opted and But it got a few people in office, flawed as they may have been, it's not impossible for conservatives to get office, If they push.

-BTW: if you keep checking my spelling , you'll keep busy.

Good post, IMO. Yes, the political establishment such as Karl Rove, the moneymen, lock it all up beforehand. They were indeed with Romney all the way, and I even suspect that's why they had such awful weirdos in the field, so he could show up well against them. Well, I actually think they only showed up because it was a "sacrificial lamb" election the pros knew they would lose --- though Romney came a lot closer to winning than I bet they expected.

The big theme of candidate choosing in the Republican Party is "last man standing." They always, always pick the old guy who came in second in previous campaigns: hence John McCain and Mitt Romney. Reagan, too. I don't think there are any old guys left at this time! The GOP has to start over in 2016.

Some of the moneyed powers will try to do what they want, recognizing them for what they are, -not our friends- would help move. the party where it says it REALLY stands.

But both of you are just saying that we WILL just have more tepid republican presidents, but you don't admit to the results of that eventuality for us or our children.

you both seem to blithely speculate on the likely tepid choices as if it's going to make a positive difference.

[mundame]

But both of you are just saying that we WILL just have more tepid republican presidents, but you don't admit to the results of that eventuality for us or our children.

you both seem to blithely speculate on the likely tepid choices as if it's going to make a positive difference.


Not me, I didn't vote in either of the last two elections, and that was a big change in my life.

I think it's interesting to watch who comes to the fore, but at this point I have little hope that they'll choose any candidates except sex perverts like Cain or women-controllers like Santorum. It's hopeless; I give up. I've pretty much given up on democracy now that the franchise has been given to the homeless, the retarded, street people, crazies, felons, all the people whose idea of democracy is to rob the rich.

I've chosen not voting rather than voting for some little short guy nobody can remember his name who says he's a Libertarian and who won't get enough votes to bother to count. I would join a sweep of the public to throw out the loser Republicans and change the second party to Libertarian, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm just trying to stay out of it this next time. Not worry about who is running until they get it settled amongst themselves, then decide whether I can vote for either useless party and either do or don't.

[Robert A Whit]

How do you know you won't be around for another 26 years to see 100? The youngest member or even lurker of this forum might not see 2014 alive.

That's right.

[Robert A Whit]

As a doctor, Ron Paul is far more grumpy than my doctors are. As a politician, tell me what he has ever managed in government?

Most people won't vote for a person that has no management experience unless they happen to be a democrat.

As to Paul Ryan, ditto. I like both of them. But liking them and calling them president is a very different matter.

I like experience. Look at the low ratings of the rest and see how the rest of us feel.

Ideology over experience just won't work.

Look, say you got rich and decided to hire a cook.

Would you hire an actual cook or somebody that carried around boxes of food to put into a store?

[bingster]

What was "extreme right wing" about the primary?

Every question and every point was to find the most extreme answer possible. "How many of you would accept a deal of $10 of cuts vs. $1 of revenue?"-all voted no.

Any candidate who showed the least amount of moderation lost e.g. Perry believed in the Dream Act.

The death penalty got a standing ovation.

The audiences of each debate sounded like blood thirsty mobs.

[bingster]

Every question and every point was to find the most extreme answer possible. "How many of you would accept a deal of $10 of cuts vs. $1 of revenue?"-all voted no.

Any candidate who showed the least amount of moderation lost e.g. Perry believed in the Dream Act.

The death penalty got a standing ovation.

The audiences of each debate sounded like blood thirsty mobs.

Plus, the proof of extreme was in the pudding. Romney ran away from every moderate position he's ever had. He used to be unquestionably moderate. He even once called himself "To the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights"

[aboutime]

Plus, the proof of extreme was in the pudding. Romney ran away from every moderate position he's ever had. He used to be unquestionably moderate. He even once called himself "To the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights"


Da Bingster 4318 has spoken.

[Abbey Marie]

Da Bingster 4318 has spoken.

AT, unless I missed it, I haven't seen anywhere that bingster has been insulting to you or anyone. I don't want to otherwise imply that it's only you- can we all try to stick to discussing content?

[red states rule]

Voting for a Libertarian is not voting for Obama; it's voting for a Libertarian.

Not voting is not the same as voting for Obama; it's just not voting.

I don't know where people get the strange idea that doing the opposite of something is the same as doing that something.

We need clearer thinking, guys. If you don't do X, you haven't done X.

Considering Obama got 4 million fewer votes in 2012 then he did in 2008; and considering over 5 million "conservatives" stayed home and di not vote - I would say those PO'd conservatives handed the election to Obama on a silver platter. Of course there were many bigots who simply did not vote for Mitt because - gasp - he is a Mormon. Thanks a lot folks

[taft2012]

Conservative Don't stick, MOST vote for the republican RINO Neo-Con in the end.

If by "in the end" you mean after the primaries are completed and a party nominee is selected, then yes, we do.

That seems to be the only time conservatives can work as a team. If we can learn to act as a team *BEFORE* the primaries, like the GOP establishment does, there's a good chance we can get what we want.

But that's not going to happen if we preach separation from the RINO 30% of the party.

Independent mindedness is going to briefly take a backseat to teamwork if the conservative coalition wants a candidate nominated.


the tea party has been co-opted and But it got a few people in office, flawed as they may have been, it's not impossible for conservatives to get office, If they push.

Nobody said it was "impossible" for conservatives to get into office.

I will say, however, it is extremely unlikely we will ever have a national presidential candidate if we keep putting up 4 or 5 conservative candidates to split the vote against one establishment RINO.


-BTW: if you keep checking my spelling , you'll keep busy.

I generally overlook spelling, but this was more than just spelling. Wrong word entirely. "martial" vs. "marshall"
That was a friendly service I was offering. That's one boo-boo you don't wanna repeat.

[tailfins]

I generally overlook spelling, but this was more than just spelling. Wrong word entirely. "martial" vs. "marshall"
That was a friendly service I was offering. That's one boo-boo you don't wanna repeat.

You mean you haven't heard of the Martial Plan after WWII to let Martians mediate disputes to prevent further wars? Part of the Martial Plan was to let the Martians institute Marshall Law.

[taft2012]

You mean you haven't heard of the Martial Plan after WWII to let Martians mediate disputes to prevent further wars? Part of the Martial Plan was to let the Martians institute Marshall Law.

Heh, no. I was actually thinking of Martial Dillon from Gunsmoke.

[cadet]

As a doctor, Ron Paul is far more grumpy than my doctors are. As a politician, tell me what he has ever managed in government?

Most people won't vote for a person that has no management experience unless they happen to be a democrat.

As to Paul Ryan, ditto. I like both of them. But liking them and calling them president is a very different matter.

I like experience. Look at the low ratings of the rest and see how the rest of us feel.

Ideology over experience just won't work.

Look, say you got rich and decided to hire a cook.

Would you hire an actual cook or somebody that carried around boxes of food to put into a store?

Screw experience. We need a guy with morals and a level head. A guy who realizes that you have to work hard to get anywhere.
Instead of a business degree, or law, or etc. We need an engineer, a doctor, a regular guy that get's America!

[revelarts]

Look i'm happy if i get the proper -there- correct in my post.
their, there or they're.
You could start 20 different threads with my busted sentences and creative spellings.

[aboutime]

Heh, no. I was actually thinking of Martial Dillon from Gunsmoke.




Golly, Gee Marshall Dillon....Nobody remembers me...Chester? 4328

[red states rule]

If by "in the end" you mean after the primaries are completed and a party nominee is selected, then yes, we do.

That seems to be the only time conservatives can work as a team. If we can learn to act as a team *BEFORE* the primaries, like the GOP establishment does, there's a good chance we can get what we want.

But that's not going to happen if we preach separation from the RINO 30% of the party.

Independent mindedness is going to briefly take a backseat to teamwork if the conservative coalition wants a candidate nominated.



Nobody said it was "impossible" for conservatives to get into office.

I will say, however, it is extremely unlikely we will ever have a national presidential candidate if we keep putting up 4 or 5 conservative candidates to split the vote against one establishment RINO.



I generally overlook spelling, but this was more than just spelling. Wrong word entirely. "martial" vs. "marshall"
That was a friendly service I was offering. That's one boo-boo you don't wanna repeat.

Taft, I believe that most R's are worried about what the NY Times, Chris Matthews, the morning and Sunday talk show hosts will say about them. They would rather be complimented by the liberal media then called "racist, mean spirited, and how they hate the poor". You see, when libs stand for big government, handouts, and more spending they are described as "principled". When R's stand for smaller government, self reliance, and getting government off the backs of the people they are called "obstructionist"

[Robert A Whit]

Every question and every point was to find the most extreme answer possible. "How many of you would accept a deal of $10 of cuts vs. $1 of revenue?"-all voted no.

Any candidate who showed the least amount of moderation lost e.g. Perry believed in the Dream Act.

The death penalty got a standing ovation.

The audiences of each debate sounded like blood thirsty mobs.

Does that make sense to you? Judge Judy is fond of saying, if it doesn's make sense, it is not true. Any republican would leap at ten dollars in cuts with a dollar in revenue. Don't you see the trap in that remark? There is a gotcha.
For instance, if taxes start now, and revenue starts in 7 years, what did you get?

The Dream act sanctions illegial aliens coming to stay here. They use that hook.

Etc. and etc.

Generally when a left winger agrees something is great, look much deeper to see the flaws.

[tailfins]

AT, unless I missed it, I haven't seen anywhere that bingster has been insulting to you or anyone. I don't want to otherwise imply that it's only you- can we all try to stick to discussing content?

They're love taps! :bighug:

[Robert A Whit]

AT, unless I missed it, I haven't seen anywhere that bingster has been insulting to you or anyone. I don't want to otherwise imply that it's only you- can we all try to stick to discussing content?

Thank you VERY MUCH Abbey. I hoped some admin person would speak up.

[red states rule]

Every question and every point was to find the most extreme answer possible. "How many of you would accept a deal of $10 of cuts vs. $1 of revenue?"-all voted no.

Any candidate who showed the least amount of moderation lost e.g. Perry believed in the Dream Act.

The death penalty got a standing ovation.

The audiences of each debate sounded like blood thirsty mobs.

Libs still OWE $6 in tax cuts for every dollar Reagan and Bush 41 raised taxes. In both cases libs LIED when they "promised" to cut spending if they got their damn tax increase. I am on the record as saying there is not ONE valid reason to raise taxes by one cent given the BS Dems are currently spending our hard earned money on. Obama has pissed through over $16 TRILLION dollars since he took office and what the hell do we have to show for it except a credit downgrade and $6 1/4 Trillion of added debt. OK Bing the floor is all yours

[tailfins]

Thank you VERY MUCH Abbey. I hoped some admin person would speak up.

Who asked ya', buttinsky?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=607058#post607058)
As a doctor, Ron Paul is far more grumpy than my doctors are. As a politician, tell me what he has ever managed in government?

Most people won't vote for a person that has no management experience unless they happen to be a democrat.

As to Paul Ryan, ditto. I like both of them. But liking them and calling them president is a very different matter.

I like experience. Look at the low ratings of the rest and see how the rest of us feel.

Ideology over experience just won't work.

Look, say you got rich and decided to hire a cook.

Would you hire an actual cook or somebody that carried around boxes of food to put into a store?




Screw experience. We need a guy with morals and a level head. A guy who realizes that you have to work hard to get anywhere.
Instead of a business degree, or law, or etc. We need an engineer, a doctor, a regular guy that get's America!

I see now why Sarah Palin was not appreciated. When we screw experience, we get another Obama.

[red states rule]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png

I see now why Sarah Palin was not appreciated. When we screw experience, we get another Obama.


Yea, I remember Obama's PR staff in the liberal media constantly telling us Biden was so much smarter then Gov. Palin. Well thanks to the takers and uninformed voters we are stuck with 4 more years of Obamanomics

[Robert A Whit]

Libs still OWE $6 in tax cuts for every dollar Reagan and Bush 41 raised taxes. In both cases libs LIED when they "promised" to cut spending if they got their damn tax increase. I am on the record as saying there is not ONE valid reason to raise taxes by one cent given the BS Dems are currently spending our hard earned money on. Obama has pissed through over $16 TRILLION dollars since he took office and what the hell do we have to show for it except a credit downgrade and $6 1/4 Trillion of added debt. OK Bing the floor is all yours

Revenues are always today.

Tax cuts come way down the road.

Very good argument on your part as well.

The Democrat mentality is we belong to the Federal Government. Way more than to our family, way more than to the city or state we live in.

We live to be squeezed like lemons so long as they promise lemon juice.

Well, at a dollar a glass, it might be fine. But it costs 100 dollars per glass.

A terrible deal to make for the public. It ends up they are deeper and deeper into national debt. When will this stuff end?

[tailfins]

Yea, I remember Obama's PR staff in the liberal media constantly telling us Biden was so much smarter then Gov. Palin. Well thanks to the takers and uninformed voters we are stuck with 4 more years of Obamanomics

How do you suppose it would have changed things if lefty moderators were barred from the GOP primary debates?

[red states rule]

Revenues are always today.

Tax cuts come way down the road.

Very good argument on your part as well.

The Democrat mentality is we belong to the Federal Government. Way more than to our family, way more than to the city or state we live in.

We live to be squeezed like lemons so long as they promise lemon juice.

Well, at a dollar a glass, it might be fine. But it costs 100 dollars per glass.

A terrible deal to make for the public. It ends up they are deeper and deeper into national debt. When will this stuff end?

It is much more then a good argument - it is factual and shows NEVER take libs at their word when it coming to damn near anything. R's are fools if they take Obama's "word" to cut spending later. They are obsessed with spending, handouts, and keeping as many people dependent on the g9vernemnt as possible. that is a big part of their base

[Robert A Whit]

Who asked ya', buttinsky?

Just some love taps chevy. :coffee:

[red states rule]

How do you suppose it would have changed things if lefty moderators were barred from the GOP primary debates?

I would be happy if they ask OBJECTIVE questions and not ask their usual racially laced gotcha questions. But hey, the liberal media will continue to wave the pom poms for Obama for the next 4 years and on Monday they will experience perhaps about 14,000 Obamagasms on the air

[tailfins]

I would be happy if they ask OBJECTIVE questions and not ask their usual racially laced gotcha questions. But hey, the liberal media will continue to wave the pom poms for Obama for the next 4 years and on Monday they will experience perhaps about 14,000 Obamagasms on the air

The GOP has no control over how lefties behave. The do have control over who moderates THEIR debate. In my opinion, that's where the election was lost with assists from George Step-in-it-opolis and Candy Crowley.

[red states rule]

The GOP has no control over how lefties behave. The do have control over who moderates THEIR debate. In my opinion, that's where the election was lost with assists from George Step-in-it-opolis and Candy Crowley.

No the election was lost when day after day and night after night the liberal media "reported" the Obama approved talking points that Mitt was a murderer. a felon, how he will kill old people, starve children, start a world war, and meanwhile Obama was Saint, a victim of racism, it was all Bush's fault, and how Obama will "take care of the poor", screw over the "rich" and take out the nations enemies.