The Lesson Of NH?

[Kathianne]

Everyone does want 'big government...'

I remember reading this back when written, thought about it some. Have seen multiple posts here by 'conservatives' that call me and others 'liberals' that actually do argue for 'more from the fed.' Maybe this election is just about this?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/430104/many-americans-dont-seem-all-upset-about-big-government


Many Americans Don’t Seem All That Upset about Big Government

...

Let me offer a thought that every conservative should contemplate, even though it’s one we would rather avoid:

What if the American people don’t want smaller government that spends less?

This is where we usually hear talk about how small-government conservatives need ‘better messaging.” Or someone will insist that there’s a broad desire for a smaller government that spends less, but those Washington insiders and Establishment sold out the conservative agenda. But what if Americans have heard the arguments for smaller government, understand the arguments — or understand them as well as they’re ever going to — and have rejected them?

Does a country where the popular vote in the last six elections went for Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama and Obama really crave smaller government?

...

If the national debt were tangible — a giant monster, rampaging across the landscape — people would mobilize to stop it. But it’s not; it’s just a number on a piece of paper. By the time Obama leaves office, he’ll have added about $8 trillion to the debt, and plenty of Americans — to the extent they’re even aware of it — will feel it hasn’t affected their lives one bit. The interest payments on the debt — $227 billion — don’t “feel” big enough, and aren’t squeezing out other spending priorities enough, to worry people.

Saul Alinsky wrote: The moment one gets into the area of $25 million and above, let alone a billion, the listener is completely out of touch, no longer really interested, because the figures have gone above his experience and almost are meaningless. Millions of Americans do not know how many million dollars make up a billion.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Everyone does want 'big government...'

I remember reading this back when written, thought about it some. Have seen multiple posts here by 'conservatives' that call me and others 'liberals' that actually do argue for 'more from the fed.' Maybe this election is just about this?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/430104/many-americans-dont-seem-all-upset-about-big-government



Saul Alinsky wrote: The moment one gets into the area of $25 million and above, let alone a billion, the listener is completely out of touch, no longer really interested, because the figures have gone above his experience and almost are meaningless. Millions of Americans do not know how many million dollars make up a billion.

^^^ That is because math was targeted long ago by lib education as to be greatly dumbed down for the masses. Being well educated in math is a very, very necessary thing in this world, as being dumb in math is
often an indicator of being unable to think at higher levels--exactly what Alinsky wanted for our masses and what liberal education system delivered IMHO.
THAT DUMBING DOWN BORE ITS GREATEST FRUITS FOR THE MARXIST/SOCIALIST/LIBERAL CAUSE IN THE
INFLICTION UPON THIS NATION OF EIGHT YEARS OF OBAMA ...

WE EITHER REVERSE THAT ARE WE FALL AS A NATION.
If we race deeper into it I think we fall in ten years or less.
If we fight it vigorously we may pull out of it but nipping at the edges will only delay this nation's demise IMHO.
Look at what obama has done so far, he sped up 6 decades of socialist creep(destruction) into a mere 8 years.
If from that point the snowball keeps rolling downhill, we will wake up one day to our demise in what will seem like an overnight event to the masses.

I wrote a senior term paper (subject was, America will fall as did Rome, decay from within) on this back in 1972, then giving it 35/40 years to occur.
I was off by a bit.. seems its likely to be around the 50 year mark. If you add in 8 years of Hillary to finish up the obama agenda.

1972+40= 2012= mid-term of obama, +4= 2016, add in 8 years of Hillary= 2024
thus 52 years. 1972 + 52= 2024.. = around the 50 year mark.

I love history, math , chess and deep thinking.
A shame that our lib/socialist designed education system fails epically in teaching any of that..-Tyr

[Kathianne]

^^^ That is because math was targeted long ago by lib education as to be greatly dumbed down for the masses. Being well educated in math is a very, very necessary thing in this world, as being dumb in math is
often an indicator of being unable to think at higher levels--exactly what Alinsky wanted for our masses and what liberal education system delivered IMHO.
THAT DUMBING DOWN BORE ITS GREATEST FRUITS FOR THE MARXIST/SOCIALIST/LIBERAL CAUSE IN THE
INFLICTION UPON THIS NATION OF EIGHT YEARS OF OBAMA ...

WE EITHER REVERSE THAT ARE WE FALL AS A NATION.
If we race deeper into it I think we fall in ten years or less.
If we fight it vigorously we may pull out of it but nipping at the edges will only delay this nation's demise IMHO.
Look at what obama has done so far, he sped up 6 decades of socialist creep(destruction) into a mere 8 years.
If from that point the snowball keeps rolling downhill, we will wake up one day to our demise in what will seem like an overnight event to the masses.

I wrote a senior term paper (subject was, America will fall as did Rome, decay from within) on this back in 1972, then giving it 35/40 years to occur.
I was off by a bit.. seems its likely to be around the 50 year mark. If you add in 8 years of Hillary to finish up the obama agenda.

1972+40= 2012= mid-term of obama, +4= 2016, add in 8 years of Hillary= 2024
thus 52 years. 1972 + 52= 2024.. = around the 50 year mark.

I love history, math , chess and deep thinking.
A shame that our lib designed education system fails epically in teaching any of that..-Tyr


Then explain why Trump and Sanders are winning, is your contention that only those with inadequate education are in favor of entitlements being cut-because their supporters are strongly in favor of entitlements.

[tailfins]

Then explain why Trump and Sanders are winning, is your contention that only those with inadequate education are in favor of entitlements being cut-because their supporters are strongly in favor of entitlements.

Here's MY explanation why Trump and Sanders are ahead:

Our society has become so tone deaf to right and wrong that it will fall for anything. That someone like Trump can just mouth off what a certain demographic wants to hear with no track record, or even no history of advancing conservative principles is a sign how dumbed-down even Republicans have become.


2 Timothy 4:1-4King James Version (KJV)

1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Then explain why Trump and Sanders are winning, is your contention that only those with inadequate education are in favor of entitlements being cut-because their supporters are strongly in favor of entitlements.

My comment was not based upon anything about Trump and/or Sanders as it dealt with a theory/prediction that I made in a term paper back in 1972, at age 18.
Yet the mere fact that Sanders is going gangbusters, surely validates much of my 40+ year old theory.
By the way, that term paper won me honors and got three of my teachers to bust their asses to get me a college scholarship. I let them down because I was a stupid hell raiser and went off to fight, raise hell, drink, chase tha women,etc. I look back now and can clearly see how my father's death and its aftermath caused me to take that road.
I make no excuses for my mistakes and my letting those three wonderful teachers down.
Just one of my many, many mistakes for my almost two decades of being a wild mustang (age 16 to 34 )..

I do contend that only those with a "true education" can see the error and massive destruction that liberalism has brought to this nation.
The rest either dont care, don't know, don't give a damn and/or are too brain washed to see past the nose on their faces IMHO.--TYR

[jimnyc]

Here's MY explanation why Trump and Sanders are ahead:

And mine, and it's simple: people want change. Forever now it's been the same old (D) and (R) going in, and we get screwed each and every time. That's not "falling" for anything, that's a huge desire for change is all.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here's MY explanation why Trump and Sanders are ahead:

Our society has become so tone deaf to right and wrong that it will fall for anything. That someone like Trump can just mouth off what a certain demographic wants to hear with no track record, or even no history of advancing conservative principles is a sign how dumbed-down even Republicans have become.


Our society has become so tone deaf to right and wrong that it will fall for anything.

^^^ 1ST. You could have stopped right there and been on the money IMHO.

2ND. THAT DUMBED DOWN WAS BY LIBERAL/SOCIALIST DESIGN= OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM.
It was not by mere happenstance..-Tyr

[Perianne]

Here's MY explanation why Trump and Sanders are ahead:

Our society has become so tone deaf to right and wrong that it will fall for anything. That someone like Trump can just mouth off what a certain demographic wants to hear with no track record, or even no history of advancing conservative principles is a sign how dumbed-down even Republicans have become.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8375&stc=1

[Kathianne]

My comment was not based upon anything about Trump and/or Sanders as it dealt with a theory/prediction that I made in a term paper back in 1972, at age 18.
Yet the mere fact that Sanders is going gangbusters, surely validates much of my 40+ year old theory.
By the way, that term paper won me honors and got three of my teachers to bust their asses to get me a college scholarship. I let them down because I was a stupid hell raiser and went off to fight, raise hell, drink, chase tha women,etc. I look back now and can clearly see how my father's death and its aftermath caused me to take that road.
I make no excuses for my mistakes and my letting those three wonderful teachers down.
Just one of my many, many mistakes for my almost two decades of being a wild mustang (age 16 to 34 )..

I do contend that only those with a "true education" can see the error and massive destruction that liberalism has brought to this nation.
The rest either dont care, don't know, don't give a damn and/or are too brain washed to see past the nose on their faces IMHO.--TYR

I guess I was confused as you quoted my post on a new thread. Oh well, that is sometimes how these things roll. The link and gist of my post was that it seems that your prediction may be relevant to the current two contenders, what they put forward, and their current high percentages.

It seems that everyone wants bread-just different recipes.

[jimnyc]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8375&stc=1

Yups, now Trump supporters are mindless zombies! :laugh:

[Kathianne]

That front page is almost, just almost enough to almost make me change my mind.

Nothing close to that on Bernie or his supporters, though the differences between the two candidates aren't that great.

[jimnyc]

NY Daily News, NY Times, NY Post - for that fact, ALL of the NY papers SUCK! I live in liberal la la land.

[Perianne]

NY Daily News, NY Times, NY Post - for that fact, ALL of the NY papers SUCK! I live in liberal la la land.

And I post such things to remind our posters, when your views are in agreement with their views, it is time to take a second look.

Again, I am NOT on the Trump train.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I guess I was confused as you quoted my post on a new thread. Oh well, that is sometimes how these things roll. The link and gist of my post was that it seems that your prediction may be relevant to the current two contenders, what they put forward, and their current high percentages.

It seems that everyone wants bread-just different recipes.

No problem. We all want this nation to prosper and our kids/grandkids to have great lives and live in a free nation.
Sure it may be relevant to both those contenders as I agree that it is but my term paper did not deal with only the bad effects of having one or two leaders in power as presidents , but rather the accumulation of a general and deliberate long term agenda pushed by the left in this nation in 40+ years.
Seems to me that we are both right on that..
I agree with your original premise, that we conservatives may need to understand that its possible that now a majority truly wants big government --
I believe because of their "educated ignorance" which is compounded by big government propaganda, punishments and unconstitutional actions! -Tyr

[jimnyc]

And I post such things to remind our posters, when your views are in agreement with their views, it is time to take a second look.

Again, I am NOT on the Trump train.

I just don't see the point in trying to insult all of his supporters. Not sure what they think they're accomplishing, other than making their paper seem amateurish and trollish.

[Kathianne]

No problem. We all want this nation to prosper and our kids/grandkids to have great lives and live in a free nation.
Sure it may be relevant to both those contenders as I agree that it is but my term paper did not deal with only the bad effects of having one or two leaders in power as presidents , but rather the accumulation of a general and deliberate long term agenda pushed by the left in this nation in 40+ years.
Seems to me that we are both right on that..
I agree with your original premise, that we conservatives may need to understand that its possible that now a majority truly wants big government --
I believe because of their "educated ignorance" which is compounded by big government propaganda, punishments and unconstitutional actions! -Tyr

Thus while playing out here for months, it's true, that those wanting 'small government' are traditional conservative. The majority who call themselves conservative are as much for government intrusions, believing that if it's for the right reasons, all will be well. They all talk of deficits and 'cutting foreign aid' as curealls, ignoring the growing problem with daddy fed.

[Perianne]

Here's MY explanation why Trump and Sanders are ahead:

Our society has become so tone deaf to right and wrong that it will fall for anything. That someone like Trump can just mouth off what a certain demographic wants to hear with no track record, or even no history of advancing conservative principles is a sign how dumbed-down even Republicans have become.


I just don't see the point in trying to insult all of his supporters. Not sure what they think they're accomplishing, other than making their paper seem amateurish and trollish.

Remember, Andrew Cuomo said they don't want conservatives in New York.

The New York papers tend to lean liberal, don't ya think?

[Kathianne]

And I post such things to remind our posters, when your views are in agreement with their views, it is time to take a second look.

Again, I am NOT on the Trump train.

Oh, I looked. I know the paper and wouldn't use it for paper training a puppy. The candidate? Blech! As I posted, Bernie is no different.

The slam was at voters. I may disagree with them, vehemently, but they have the same right as I do to be right or wrong in their choices.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yups, now Trump supporters are mindless zombies! :laugh:

They ridicule most, exactly what they are most afraid of my friend.
See that clown pic of Trump, to me it represent lib/dem fear of his determination to undue what their "messiah" has wrought.
They can not defeat the ideas and foundation that Trump bases what he plans to do on.
So they ridicule him and act like children,typical lib behavior when not getting their way,
ridicule, smear, lie and "burn tha bitch down" type tactics so often used by their bought out bots......-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thus while playing out here for months, it's true, that those wanting 'small government' are traditional conservative. The majority who call themselves conservative are as much for government intrusions, believing that if it's for the right reasons, all will be well. They all talk of deficits and 'cutting foreign aid' as curealls, ignoring the growing problem with daddy fed.




The majority who call themselves conservative are as much for government intrusions, believing that if it's for the right reasons, all will be well. They all talk of deficits and 'cutting foreign aid' as curealls, ignoring the growing problem with daddy fed.
Thats certainly true of both political parties, more so the dem party leaders, as they are almost completely socialists now. Yet so are the Republican party leaders, thus Trump who both parties dearly hate--meets most, even if not all, the requirements of we that oppose that ruinous thinking from both political parties. We have no choice to overlook his weaknesses,as every candidate has weaknesses.
If he delivers on the general agenda he puts forth then we will be far better off than anything the dems will do regardless of who they'd put in there. .-TYR




The majority who call themselves conservative are as much for government intrusions, believing that if it's for the right reasons, all will be well.
I AM NOT SURE THAT WE CAN SAY THE MAJORITY OF CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE OR WANT THAT .
Sure, some(me included) think that Trump may --HAVE TO-- step deep and hard in ways obama did to reverse/destroy what he did that is and was so disastrous for this nation.
If the leftward swing has been corruptly swung that far south, then many believe --by any means required-bring it back that far north .
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, as we have to stop playing so nice and letting the left
continue to beat by making deeper cuts in the tree IMHO.
NOTED: Dangerous to do that but we are already in deep danger from 7 years of allowing obama to do just that.. -TYR

[tailfins]

And mine, and it's simple: people want change. Forever now it's been the same old (D) and (R) going in, and we get screwed each and every time. That's not "falling" for anything, that's a huge desire for change is all.

We see what 8 years of a "hopey changey" president got us. If the US can reverse and repair the damage he has done, it will be a great feat.

[Kathianne]

Thats certainly true of both political parties, more so the dem party leaders, as they are almost completely socialists now. Yet so are the Republican party leaders, thus Trump who both parties dearly hate--meets most, even if not all, the requirements of we that oppose that ruinous thinking from both political parties. We have no choice to overlook his weaknesses,as every candidate has weaknesses.
If he delivers on the general agenda he puts forth then we will be far better off than anything the dems will do regardless of who they'd put in there. .-TYR




I AM NOT SURE THAT WE CAN SAY THE MAJORITY OF CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE OR WANT THAT .
Sure, some(me included) think that Trump may --HAVE TO-- step deep and hard in ways obama did to reverse/destroy what he did that is and was so disastrous for this nation.
If the leftward swing has been corruptly swung that far south, then many believe --by any means required-bring it back that far north .
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, as we have to stop playing so nice and letting the left
continue to beat by making deeper cuts in the tree IMHO.
NOTED: Dangerous to do that but we are already in deep danger from 7 years of allowing obama to do just that.. -TYR


Seriously, what entitlements is Trump aiming for? Where has he called for truly rolling back the Fed from any of the powers taken by or given to the states?

A start: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/08/465974199/what-do-sanders-and-trump-have-in-common-more-than-you-think

Then there's healthcare.

Then there's Trump saying many times, though not usually in a complete sentence or even fragments within the same paragraph his, 'We'll do it smarter, the problem is incompetence...' He's for big government, just 'smarter.'

Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? 'People are dying on the streets of America'-just days ago...

[jimnyc]

We see what 8 years of a "hopey changey" president got us. If the US can reverse and repair the damage he has done, it will be a great feat.

That was from a politician, a community organizer. This time around I wouldn't mind trying a business man. And then hopefully right some of those wrongs in congress.

[Drummond]

They ridicule most, exactly what they are most afraid of my friend.
See that clown pic of Trump, to me it represent lib/dem fear of his determination to undue what their "messiah" has wrought.
They can not defeat the ideas and foundation that Trump bases what he plans to do on.
So they ridicule him and act like children,typical lib behavior when not getting their way,
ridicule, smear, lie and "burn tha bitch down" type tactics so often used by their bought out bots......-Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Abbey Marie]

We see what 8 years of a "hopey changey" president got us. If the US can reverse and repair the damage he has done, it will be a great feat.

I wouldn't characterize anything Trump says as "hopey". Quite the opposite- he claims he can and will handily do it all. And as for "Changey", he is talking about going back to the way things used to be. Love or hate him, believe him or think it's baloney, that is his message.

Sanders is your current hope-y change-y guy.

[Kathianne]

I wouldn't characterize anything Trump says as "hopey". Quite the opposite- he claims he can and will handily do it all. And as for "Changey", he is talking about going back to the way things used to be. Love or hate him, believe him or think it's baloney, that is his message.

Sanders is your current hope-y change-y guy.

I agree on the 'hopey' though he doesn't want to go back to 'smaller central government,' just smarter bigger government.

[Abbey Marie]

I agree on the 'hopey' though he doesn't want to go back to 'smaller central government,' just smarter bigger government.


I was referencing his "Make America Great Again", and his expressed desire to bring businesses back here from off shore.

[Kathianne]

I was referencing his "Make America Great Again", and his expressed desire to bring businesses back here from off shore.

Yeah, though protectionism hasn't worked well in the past that I'm aware of.

[Drummond]

I'll no doubt be attacked for this, by anyone wanting to paint me as 'other than Conservative'. If so ... well ... form an orderly queue ...

I'm well aware of the rejection of 'Big Government' by American Conservatives. To a great extent, I concur ... Government needs to be as small as it can be, as unobtrusive as possible in peoples' lives. The self-reliance aspect of human existence is part-and-parcel of what makes a human life fully worth living. To strive. To achieve. To be productive, not only for yourself, but your loved ones.

But I do differ in my capacity for the fullest realism .. it seems to me. I know from my experience of UK politics that we have ABSOLUTELY needed Big Government intrusions from time to time. Nowhere was this more obvious than during, and after, the 'Winter of Discontent' (1979-1980) .. when Unions were launching wave after wave of strikes. Fact is that our Unions had freedoms that they were massively abusing. Had they not been stopped by strong Governmental powers wielded against them, I am 100% sure that the UK would've been obliterated as a viable fiscal entity, long ago.

As it was, our CONSERVATIVE Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, acted to restrict their freedoms. Big Government legislation enforced a much-needed remedy. There was no alternative, short of seeing the UK ultimately smashed beyond repair.

I challenge anyone here to tell me that Margaret Thatcher was not a Conservative, and an especially stellar one at that !! Yet, AS THAT, she proved that there are times when only Big Government will do.

So, let me pose a couple of questions centred around America's experience.

THINK 9/11.

Consider that nothing less than a Big Government approach was needed to tackle its ramifications. The action taken over, and in, Afghanistan .. to tackle Al Qaeda training camps. Indeed, the whole 'War on Terror' effort was 'Big Government' in action. Efforts made to safeguard America from terrorist attack are all Big Government in nature.

So, to questions:

1. Should Bush have refrained from any Government response to the 9/11 attack, since, to respond, he'd have to employ 'Big Government' power to do so ?

2. Should the War on Terror never have been attempted ?

3. 'Afterwards' .. how about Homeland Security, its powers, its abilities to help keep Americans safe ? Should Homeland Security be disbanded, its legal underpinnings negated, its powers to act be neutralised ?

4. Would you have more respect for a candidate - Trump, say - if he stood up and pledged to disband Homeland Security .. ?

I wonder how loudly Islamic terrorists would applaud him, if he ever did ... ??

You see, those who so hate Big Government that they can't stand any manifestation of it, really need to look more closely at practicalities involved. Big Government is not to be ENCOURAGED .. but, it does have its place, and it's a needed place !! Ideally, it's a tool for getting things done where otherwise they could not be done ... VITAL things.

Now I'll wait for someone to come along and brand me a 'Big Government Hack' (and worse ?) .. just because I understand what's real and what's not in this world !

[fj1200]

That was from a politician, a community organizer. This time around I wouldn't mind trying a business man. And then hopefully right some of those wrongs in congress.

We already had at least one. Bush 43 was the first MBA president and Hoover was highly accomplished in business.

[Drummond]

We already had at least one. Bush 43 was the first MBA president and Hoover was highly accomplished in business.

Is Trump too Right-wing for you, FJ ?

Come on. Be honest ...

[tailfins]

Is Trump too Right-wing for you, FJ ?

Come on. Be honest ...

I know you asked FJ, but I will answer too. Trump is too erratic and unreliable over the decades. Furthermore, he's politically ham-handed.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I know you asked FJ, but I will answer too. Trump is too erratic and unreliable over the decades. Furthermore, he's politically ham-handed.

No, he is not. He has dem leadership and Republican leadership hating him because they both know he will do as he says--that he will upset their little apple cart!!
Trump and Cruz will both do that and they are both hated by both parties exactly because that is the truth.
Figures you'd miss that yet you claim to be for Cruz.
I am for Cruz myself , right behind Trump.
Trump will be more hardcore on them than Cruz and he 'll be much tougher making deals with foreign nations,
as the obama has been giving away the bank to special selected nations(primarily muslim nations)..Tyr

[tailfins]

No, he is not. He has dem leadership and Republican leadership hating him because they both know he will do as he says--that he will upset their little apple cart!!
Trump and Cruz will both do that and they are both hated by both parties exactly because that is the truth.
Figures you'd miss that yet you claim to be for Cruz.
I am for Cruz myself , right behind Trump.
Trump will be more hardcore on them than Cruz and he 'll be much tougher making deals with foreign nations,
as the obama has been giving away the bank to special selected nations(primarily muslim nations)..Tyr

I don't have to "claim" to be for Cruz. I sign up for his email updates and do what they ask as much as time and finances permit. I don't try to outsmart the candidate I support. He knows what he's doing .

[Kathianne]

For the Europeans here, the Constitution was actually quite adept at separating powers-including the establishment of the military. It also recognized the need for Homeland protection-though you wouldn't be surprised that they are the ones, with enormous powers, manpower, and resources to secure the border. The federal government had all the powers-through the Constitution to deal with 9/11, Pearl Harbor, etc. They have the power to set up Homeland Security and did.

They should do what they are tasked to do and do it competently. They don't, but that is beside the point of the discussion of 'big government' and limited government.

However, there is no doubt that Trump and one must extrapolate to his supporters, agree with the European model and implementing such in a wonderful way-competently.

[tailfins]

No, he is not. He has dem leadership and Republican leadership hating him because they both know he will do as he says--that he will upset their little apple cart!!
Trump and Cruz will both do that and they are both hated by both parties exactly because that is the truth.
Figures you'd miss that yet you claim to be for Cruz.
I am for Cruz myself , right behind Trump.
Trump will be more hardcore on them than Cruz and he 'll be much tougher making deals with foreign nations,
as the obama has been giving away the bank to special selected nations(primarily muslim nations)..Tyr

If you vote for Trump; you're voting against Cruz .

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If you vote for Trump; you're voting against Cruz .

And if Trump somehow chooses Cruz as his running mate I win twice and the lousy dem/lib/globalists get smashed
all to hell and back. Both can not be prez. I picked the one that had the most moxy and would do far more damage to the obama agenda IMHO..-TYR

[Drummond]

I know you asked FJ, but I will answer too. Trump is too erratic and unreliable over the decades. Furthermore, he's politically ham-handed.

Let's say (and I don't) that I thought there was something to this argument. Presidents have teams of advisers at their disposal. Unless you're arguing that this somehow wouldn't be true of Trump as President .. doesn't that reality answer your objection ?

[fj1200]

Is Trump too Right-wing for you, FJ ?

Come on. Be honest ...

Your imagination fails you again. As discussed ad infinitum he isn't really very conservative in the first place. And definitely not reliably conservative.

[tailfins]

And if Trump somehow chooses Cruz as his running mate I win twice and the lousy dem/lib/globalists get smashed
all to hell and back. Both can not be prez. I picked the one that had the most moxy and would do far more damage to the obama agenda IMHO..-TYR

Trump could just as easily select someone like Michael Bloomberg. Cruz was on to something with his New York values line of attack.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Trump could just as easily select someone like Michael Bloomberg. Cruz was on to something with his New York values line of attack.

if,could, maybe , would, should , possibly, what if, etc. etc. etc....
The what if's are limitless and can be applied to any candidate...
We best deal with reality in our choosing and not made up Hypotheticals.

WHAT IF A FROG DID NOT BUMP ITS ASS EVERY TIME IT JUMPED???? :laugh2:--Tyr

[tailfins]

if,could, maybe , would, should , possibly, what if, etc. etc. etc....
The what if's are limitless and can be applied to any candidate...
We best deal with reality in our choosing and not made up Hypotheticals.

WHAT IF A FROG DID NOT BUMP ITS ASS EVERY TIME IT JUMPED???? :laugh2:--Tyr

By their fruits you shall know them.

Unrepentant adulterer
Democrat party contributor
stated "pro-choice" positions
stated support for socialized medicine

Last night on the Mark Levin Show, they were playing a RECENT recording of Trump saying that he can be anything he needs to be. Even Limbaugh and Levin have stopped carrying Trump's water.

http://www.marklevinshow.com/ It's in the second hour if you want to hear for yourself.



Matthew 7:16-20King James Version (KJV)16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

[NightTrain]

Even Limbaugh and Levin have stopped carrying Trump's water.


Wrong again, Chump.

Behold!


Wednesday on his radio show, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh argued that New Hampshire Republican primary winner Donald Trump won by building a coalition of voters that went beyond just conservatives, which is something the GOP has claimed was necessary to win elections in this era of American politics.

Limbaugh referred to exit polling as proof, noting that he had voters from every demographic and that conservatives were just a small part of this “coalition.”


“Here’s Trump running against everything going on in Washington and declaring that what’s going on in Washington is incompetent and being performed by a bunch of hacks that are only in it for themselves, and he’s put together a coalition that covers every group, demographic and otherwise, that you can think of. And among the smallest in his group is conservatives. That’s why he can win big in New Hampshire with taking not very big percentage of the conservative vote because his coalition is so big and made up of so many other different groups of people. He won only a third of the ‘very conservative’ vote. ‘Among evangelical voters, Trump and Cruz were basically tied.’ Who in the world would predict that? Who in the…? After Cruz comes and dominates Iowa and does so on the basis of evangelical voters. And Trump, you know, ‘Two Corinthians walk into a bar…’ Donald Trump, ‘Two Corinthians this,’ and, ‘The Bible? The Bible kills it, except my book.’ And yet evangelicals’ support for Trump tied with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
in New Hampshire. This was the scale of Trump’s win.”


Limbaugh went through each group and pointed out Trump had won each of those groups by overwhelming margins.


“Trump won, the exit polls were right,” Limbaugh continued. “Trump won men. He won women. He won every age group. He won every ideology. Liberal, conservative, moderate, Libertarian. Every group Trump won a majority of voters. He won among people who had gone to college and people who hadn’t. He won among people who only had a high school education; he won among people who did not have a high school education. He won every single age bracket. He won those groups by huge margins. He won men 3-to-1 over second place finisher. Women he won 2-to-1. Voters under 30 he won 2-to-1. Nearly 40 percent of those who had not attended college voted Trump. A third of those who had attended college voted Trump. This is what the Republican Party’s been telling us they need to win. I’ve had ’em come to my office. I’ve told you. I’ve had Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)94%
here, Mitt Romney’s here. One thing they’ve all said in common is that Republican Party can’t win with Republican votes alone anymore. We have to branch out, we have to reach out. This is what they were telling me to prepare me for some of the campaign tactics that I was gonna see. That they were gonna have to reach out and immigration was one of the ways of reaching out, supporting amnesty.”


But instead of praising Trump for this accomplishment, Limbaugh argues the GOP is criticizing Trump instead.

Finishing with this :


“Donald Trump has the exact coalition the Republican Party, to a man, has told me they need to win, that they need to thrive,” Limbaugh said. “And now they’re reduced to bashing it by virtue of bashing Trump. And now they’re reduced to bashing it by virtue of bashing Cruz. The two people who are showing the Republican Party all they had to do all these past seven years, but they didn’t. They purposely, strategically, tactically refused to push back, refused to make a spectacle of stopping Obama, and they have themselves to blame for this predicament.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/10/limbaugh-trump-built-the-coalition-the-gop-claims-to-want-now-they-are-badgering-bashing-it/


Still want to push your weak, transparent and bullshit rhetoric?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Wrong again, Chump.

Behold!



Finishing with this :



http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/10/limbaugh-trump-built-the-coalition-the-gop-claims-to-want-now-they-are-badgering-bashing-it/


Still want to push your weak, transparent and bullshit rhetoric?

Great post NT, YOU BEAT ME TO IT.
I see no reason for me to add to that as it quite easily refuted his post/reasoning.
Of course he is free to think as he wish but that freedom does not insure that its correct thinking.
He has one thing going for him, in that he chose Cruz, and to me Cruz is second only to Trump.-Tyr

[Drummond]

Your imagination fails you again. As discussed ad infinitum he isn't really very conservative in the first place. And definitely not reliably conservative.

Oh, I don't know. He cares passionately about national security. He has the proper caution, and willingness to act on it, as any true Conservative should have. His business acumen definitely points to an individual who lives by standards America was founded on.

No, this is just you, a Leftie, trying to smear the opposition. It doesn't work for me, and shouldn't work for anyone else, either.

At least, I could hope not.

[NightTrain]

Great post NT, YOU BEAT ME TO IT.
I see no reason for me to add to that as it quite easily refuted his post/reasoning.
Of course he is free to think as he wish but that freedom does not insure that its correct thinking.
He has one thing going for him, in that he chose Cruz, and to me Cruz is second only to Trump.-Tyr


There's just no reason to make shit up, IMO. It's irritating.

Trump has many flaws that can be legitimately discussed without resorting to lying.

I didn't even bother looking into what Levin said, but I already read the Limbaugh analysis yesterday and knew where he stood.

[fj1200]

Oh, I don't know.

:blah: Let me know when you have anything that counters my statement rather than your blathering imagination.

[fj1200]

Behold!

He also said this:


"If conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote, there is no other choice for you in this campaign than Ted Cruz."-Rush

But to say he won them doesn't say that he won a plurality of even the Republicans voting. IMO he doesn't support trump so much as appreciate what he's doing.

[Drummond]

:blah: Let me know when you have anything that counters my statement rather than your blathering imagination.

What, and spoil your great capacity to discredit YOURSELF ??

I've made this point, but it bears repeating .. using Conservative links isn't the same as constructing, then defending, a Conservative point of view. To do that, of course, you need to think as a Conservative. This is why you much prefer trying pedantic snipings on others' posts, than offering anything really original, of your own.

I observed that about you long ago. It amazes me that this may not be equally obvious to every other true Conservative posting here.

[Kathianne]

He also said this:



But to say he won them doesn't say that he won a plurality of even the Republicans voting. IMO he doesn't support trump so much as appreciate what he's doing.

Indeed, if one is just for 'winning' regardless of underlying principles Trump is the ticket.

He's not conservative, in fact in many ways he echoes Bernie on things like health care and protectionism. I'd say unlike Bernie, he has a vested role in stronger big government, IF he becomes part of the apparatus-that is the way to win! Socialism lowers the standard of living for everyone but the elite.

Trump unites all those who want to win at all costs-smash Hillary, Obama, and those fake conservatives!

[fj1200]

What, and spoil your great capacity to discredit YOURSELF ??

Your imagination wins the day then.

[jimnyc]

Trump unites all those who want to win at all costs-smash Hillary, Obama, and those fake conservatives!

Everyone I knew jumped on Trump because they like him and his stances. Surely they could have chosen one of the other 15 or so candidates and ran with them if their only goal was to win.

[Kathianne]

Everyone I knew jumped on Trump because they like him and his stances. Surely they could have chosen one of the other 15 or so candidates and ran with them if their only goal was to win.

To quote: they're p* **ies

[fj1200]

Everyone I knew jumped on Trump because they like him and his stances. Surely they could have chosen one of the other 15 or so candidates and ran with them if their only goal was to win.

You like his "the governments going to pay for it" health insurance?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/trump-pushes-single-payer-healthcare-tax-increase-on-wealthy/

[jimnyc]

To quote: they're p* **ies

Sure, that's why I preferred Trump :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

You like his "the governments going to pay for it" health insurance?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/trump-pushes-single-payer-healthcare-tax-increase-on-wealthy/

Odd, I don't recall stating such.

[fj1200]

Odd, I don't recall stating such.

It was a question to those who like his stances.

[NightTrain]

Well, I guess there's no pleasing everyone.

The biggest argument against Trump was "There's no way he can possibly win - he has no base!". That was the mantra for how many months? I read that line probably 40 times per day since this all began.

Clearly, that's not the case and he appeals to many more than just conservatives like me.


He's electable, he's a hardass, he calls a spade a spade, and the status quo that has plagued our GOP pussies, yes PUSSIES, for the last 7 years is coming to an end. Take the gloves off and go to work, and damn the torpedoes.



And, btw, I do believe he's going to have Mexico pay for the wall - he already made the Media pay for his campaign. Tell me that's not brilliance of the highest order.

[jimnyc]

It was a question to those who like his stances.

I'm not thrilled and overwhelmed by it, but it's hardly a deal breaker for me. Hell, none of the other candidates are perfect either. I choose based on all of the issues together as a total, and who then best offers me what I want. Of course some things get priority over others as well.

[jimnyc]

Well, I guess there's no pleasing everyone.

The biggest argument against Trump was "There's no way he can possibly win - he has no base!". That was the mantra for how many months? I read that line probably 40 times per day since this all began.

Clearly, that's not the case and he appeals to many more than just conservatives like me.


He's electable, he's a hardass, he calls a spade a spade, and the status quo that has plagued our GOP pussies, yes PUSSIES, for the last 7 years is coming to an end. Take the gloves off and go to work, and damn the torpedoes.



And, btw, I do believe he's going to have Mexico pay for the wall - he already made the Media pay for his campaign. Tell me that's not brilliance of the highest order.

Don't forget that "he has no plans" at all, only that he'll surround himself with smart people! :laugh:

[Perianne]

You like his "the governments going to pay for it" health insurance?


I am one of the most conservative people ever, and I see the need for it. I hate the idea, but it's coming. They've set it up so that it is becoming necessary.

[fj1200]

I'm not thrilled and overwhelmed by it, but it's hardly a deal breaker for me. Hell, none of the other candidates are perfect either. I choose based on all of the issues together as a total, and who then best offers me what I want. Of course some things get priority over others as well.

I'm not aware of any others anywhere close to single payer or for a protectionist trade stance other than Sanders.

[fj1200]

I am one of the most conservative people ever, and I see the need for it. I hate the idea, but it's coming. They've set it up so that it is becoming necessary.

Hardly. And there is no need for it.

[jimnyc]

I'm not aware of any others anywhere close to single payer or for a protectionist trade stance other than Sanders.

And I said that? I simply said that none of the others were perfect either. Why try and place words in my mouth? I thought I explained myself rather clearly.

[NightTrain]

He also said this:



But to say he won them doesn't say that he won a plurality of even the Republicans voting. IMO he doesn't support trump so much as appreciate what he's doing.


I actually like Cruz, and he's my second choice.


However, what I said stands. Tailfins steered you wrong, and deliberately so.

[jimnyc]

I actually like Cruz, and he's my second choice.


However, what I said stands. Tailfins steered you wrong, and deliberately so.

That won't matter to some, so long as he hates Trump equally. :)

[tailfins]

Everyone I knew jumped on Trump because they like him and his stances. Surely they could have chosen one of the other 15 or so candidates and ran with them if their only goal was to win.

Would that be Trump's announced stances or his REAL stances? Irrespective of today's stances, just wait awhile and he will take a stance you like no matter what your views are. When I say "you", I mean in the generic sense, as in anybody.

[NightTrain]

Would that be Trump's announced stances or his REAL stances? Irrespective of today's stances, just wait awhile and he will take a stance you like no matter what your views are. When I say "you", I mean in the generic sense, as in anybody.


Since you have a functioning Crystal Ball, why don't you enlighten everyone as to Trump's "REAL stances"?


And where can I get one of those?

[tailfins]

Since you have a functioning Crystal Ball, why don't you enlighten everyone as to Trump's "REAL stances"?


And where can I get one of those?

No crystal ball needed: Just listen to Levin from yesterday. Trump's real views are what's expedient at the moment.

[NightTrain]

No crystal ball needed: Just listen to Levin from yesterday. Trump's real views are what's expedient at the moment.


I see.

Why not listen to Limbaugh instead? He's not conservative enough? What about the fact that Trump had more conservative votes than Cruz in NH?

How's your google proxy treating you? Is it fast or laggy? The problem with hiding as a guest is that you can't see attachments... kind of a pain logging in and out all the time like that.

[tailfins]

I see.

Why not listen to Limbaugh instead? He's not conservative enough? What about the fact that Trump had more conservative votes than Cruz in NH?

How's your google proxy treating you? Is it fast or laggy? The problem with hiding as a guest is that you can't see attachments... kind of a pain logging in and out all the time like that.

I have been listening to the 2nd and 3rd hours of Limbaugh
He isn't taking sides, but has pointed out many of Trump's weaknesses. I can't find anything Limbaugh has said against Cruz.

Regarding the server: You wouldn't expect me to use my REAL IP for my DDOS attacks, would you?

[jimnyc]

Would that be Trump's announced stances or his REAL stances? Irrespective of today's stances, just wait awhile and he will take a stance you like no matter what your views are. When I say "you", I mean in the generic sense, as in anybody.

He's been pretty solid from what I've seen. If what you say is true, he would be appeasing those in favor of amnesty, he would appease the anti-war folks, he would put down the 2nd amendment, the VA...

[Drummond]

Your imagination wins the day then.

This is a claim massively disproven already.

Quite apart from the fact that all I claim is TRUE ... if it were just my imagination, as you assert, then I'd be the only one here doubting your bona fides. But as most if not all of this board must know, there are others who also have these 'active imaginations' about you, each concluding as I have that you're a Leftie, trying to pretend you're not.

Unless we all see the same thing, how do you explain it ? We all 'just happen' to have the same imaginings, about YOU, specifically ?

Ridiculous.

A 'mass psychosis', just 'happening' to be centred specifically on YOU ?

Doubly ridiculous.

I can list examples of your Leftie thinking --- you know this, because I've done it before. So can others, if they feel so inclined.

So give it up. You're not fooling people as you need them to be fooled, FJ.

[NightTrain]

I have been listening to the 2nd and 3rd hours of Limbaugh
He isn't taking sides, but has pointed out many of Trump's weaknesses. I can't find anything Limbaugh has said against Cruz.

My, that's a far different assertion than you just posted here a couple hours ago in this very thread, isn't it?

Given that you are a huge Rush fan, and listen to him every weekday, how is it that you didn't hear what I quoted from his show?


Regarding the server: You wouldn't expect me to use my REAL IP for my DDOS attacks, would you?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

The amateurish way you go about hiding your tracks tells me you're a script kiddie and know next to nothing about how the internet works. A code monkey does not a hacker make, if that's what you think you are.


But if you really are Billy Badass, come and take me down, big boy! I'll send you $100 for your successful efforts.

I'll even bypass my router for you and video your attempt.

[Drummond]

I am one of the most conservative people ever, and I see the need for it. I hate the idea, but it's coming. They've set it up so that it is becoming necessary.

What you don't need is a healthcare system that'll be so costly to the public purse that it'll drive you the nearest to bankruptcy you've ever been, as a nation.

The British NHS, serving just a fraction of the size of population that is true of America, is one of the biggest employers on this planet !! Get anywhere near our model, and you'll need to do as we have ... take manpower resources away from other countries. That, for the size of population YOU have, is surely unsustainable, if not for you, then for the rest of the world ...

The reality is that the Government will NOT pay for it, not ultimately. They'll go in for tax hikes, to ensure that YOU pay for it. You'll just have the illusion of a free service, that'll be nothing of the kind. And, being Government-run, you can expect it to provide a worse service, one more unaccountable to its customers.

[Black Diamond]

I still think new Hampshire was Sanders last hurrah.

[Black Diamond]

A lot if Sanders success has been because Hillary is so unpopular, imo

[fj1200]

And I said that? I simply said that none of the others were perfect either. Why try and place words in my mouth? I thought I explained myself rather clearly.

No. And I didn't put words in your mouth. I was making a comparison of trump and sanders.


I actually like Cruz, and he's my second choice.

However, what I said stands. Tailfins steered you wrong, and deliberately so.

He didn't steer me wrong. I don't think Rush is doing anything more than what I said earlier. I don't think he's ever bought into this "trump as conservative" line.

[fj1200]

This is a claim massively disproven already.

Every time you post your prove it.

[Perianne]

What you don't need is a healthcare system that'll be so costly to the public purse that it'll drive you the nearest to bankruptcy you've ever been, as a nation.

The British NHS, serving just a fraction of the size of population that is true of America, is one of the biggest employers on this planet !! Get anywhere near our model, and you'll need to do as we have ... take manpower resources away from other countries. That, for the size of population YOU have, is surely unsustainable, if not for you, then for the rest of the world ...

The reality is that the Government will NOT pay for it, not ultimately. They'll go in for tax hikes, to ensure that YOU pay for it. You'll just have the illusion of a free service, that'll be nothing of the kind. And, being Government-run, you can expect it to provide a worse service, one more unaccountable to its customers.

I totally agree. But we have a system now where healthcare is required by law to treat those who refuse to pay. The next logical step is for providers to want the government, or someone, to reimburse their losses. It was the great Ronald Reagan who signed EMTALA, one of the worst legislations ever for healthcare.

[Drummond]

I totally agree. But we have a system now where healthcare is required by law to treat those who refuse to pay. The next logical step is for providers to want the government, or someone, to reimburse their losses. It was the great Ronald Reagan who signed EMTALA, one of the worst legislations ever for healthcare.

Makes sense. And of course, it opens up a ridiculous precedent.

But clarify this for me, if you could .. I was listening to a radio show yesterday .. LBC (London Broadcasting) .. which, now, can be heard from an Internet feed. Anyway .. a man originally from Shoreditch, London, who now lives in the US's State of Florida, rang in. His reason for ringing in was to praise our NHS, and to 'rubbish' the US system, which the host of the show, James O'Brien (hardline Leftie presenter) was delighted to hear. That caller claimed that if you try and get treatment from a doctor, or a hospital, the first thing anyone will do is to ask you to produce your insurance card. According to this caller, if you fail to, or if you fail to prove any means of payment is possible, then they'll just refuse to help you.

You're saying the opposite ? Because the vision most British people will share is the very one that the man from Florida claimed was true .. a line which adds fuel to the belief that our NHS is 'civilised', whereas the basis for its American counterpart fails to be .....

[Perianne]

Makes sense. And of course, it opens up a ridiculous precedent.

But clarify this for me, if you could .. I was listening to a radio show yesterday .. LBC (London Broadcasting) .. which, now, can be heard from an Internet feed. Anyway .. a man originally from Shoreditch, London, who now lives in the US's State of Florida, rang in. His reason for ringing in was to praise our NHS, and to 'rubbish' the US system, which the host of the show, James O'Brien (hardline Leftie presenter) was delighted to hear. That caller claimed that if you try and get treatment from a doctor, or a hospital, the first thing anyone will do is to ask you to produce your insurance card. According to this caller, if you fail to, or if you fail to prove any means of payment is possible, then they'll just refuse to help you.

You're saying the opposite ? Because the vision most British people will share is the very one that the man from Florida claimed was true .. a line which adds fuel to the belief that our NHS is 'civilised', whereas the basis for its American counterpart fails to be .....

I should have said we are required to provide emergency treatment. It is true that payment is required for other services.

[Drummond]

Every time you post your prove it.

A one-liner posted for effect, FJ, as we both well know. And you won't reply to anything else in that post .. ?

Continue to duck any points you cannot answer, of course ... just as you always do ....

[Drummond]

I should have said we are required to provide emergency treatment. It is true that payment is required for other services.

Ah. Still .. that caller nonetheless left the impression that no help at all would be forthcoming. Without correction, British people will just go on believing it.

[Drummond]

@Perianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2722) ... thought I'd add this to my last post. It'll give you some small taste of the British perspective of all this (.. even if printed by an American newspaper !). Bear in mind that the person fending off criticism of his plans for NHS changes, with his own unfavourable contrasting of the American system, is our British CONSERVATIVE Prime Minister ...

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/13/world/la-fg-britain-health-care-20110613


Britain is now embroiled in a healthcare argument of its own, prompted by a proposed shake-up of the NHS. And the phrase on everyone's lips is "American-style," which may not be as catchy as the "death panels" that Palin attributed to socialized medicine but which, over here, inspires pretty much the same kind of terror.

Ask a Briton to describe "American-style" healthcare, and you'll hear a catalog of horrors that include grossly expensive and unnecessary medical procedures and a privatized system that favors the rich. For a people accustomed to free healthcare for all, regardless of income, the fact that millions of their cousins across the Atlantic have no insurance and can't afford decent treatment is a farce as well as a tragedy.

But critics here warn that a similarly bleak future may await Britain if a government plan to put more power in the hands of doctors and introduce more competition into the NHS succeeds — privatization by stealth, they say.

So frightening is the Yankee example that any British politician who values his job has to explicitly disavow it as a possible outcome. Twice.

"We will not be selling off the NHS, we will not be moving towards an insurance scheme, we will not introduce an American-style private system," Prime Minister David Cameron emphatically told a group of healthcare workers in a nationally televised address last week.

In case they didn't hear it the first time, Cameron repeated the dreaded "A"-word in a list of five guarantees he offered the British people at the end of his speech.

"If you're worried that we're going to sell off the NHS or create some American-style private system, we will not do that," he said. "In this country we have the most wonderful, precious institution and also precious idea that whenever you're ill … you can walk into a hospital or a surgery and get treated for free, no questions asked, no cash asked. It is the idea at the heart of the NHS, and it will stay. I will never put that at risk."

Cameron's eagerly declared devotion to the NHS illustrates the totemic role it plays in British society, an institution so cherished that some describe it as the closest thing here to a truly national religion. Created in 1948, as the country struggled to rise from the ashes of World War II, the NHS is widely hailed as the welfare state's biggest triumph.

Since then, it has bloomed into a behemoth that gobbles up nearly $170 billion a year in taxpayer money — an amount set to grow along with Britain's aging population — and is one of the nation's largest employers.

Governments of all stripes have taken office pledging to reform the system, to streamline it and make it more efficient, but none has fully succeeded, knowing that they tinker with the NHS at their peril .....

[Perianne]

Drummond, I don't know what to say. All I know is it's coming here. The lure of "free" stuff is too strong with some people.

[Perianne]

Drummond, I don't know what to say. All I know is it's coming here. The lure of "free" stuff is too strong with some people.

People without insurance might say "Peri, it's easy for you to be against socialized medicine; you have insurance". To which I would respond that I took the necessary steps to provide for me and mine.

[Drummond]

Drummond, I don't know what to say. All I know is it's coming here. The lure of "free" stuff is too strong with some people.

There's a simple answer to that ... 'nothing is for nothing'. Cameron lied when giving the impression that healthcare is 'free' ... when the truth is that it's paid for out of taxation. Funding may be on a different basis to the American model, it may be far less transparently true for Britain - but a central truth is that the ordinary citizen DOES still pay to keep the whole edifice up and running.

So, 'free stuff' is just a lie. Americans will learn that when their tax bills rise ... and substantially. Considering that your system will need to serve a population at least five times the size of ours, with a correspondingly massive drain on OTHER countries' resources .. and for a system that WILL fail people, as ours has repeatedly done ... there'll come a day when everyone will be begging for the older system to return.

[Drummond]

People without insurance might say "Peri, it's easy for you to be against socialized medicine; you have insurance". To which I would respond that I took the necessary steps to provide for me and mine.

And it's a good and proper answer, one doing you credit.

[Kathianne]

The costs are coming, many just before the election. CNN had a good piece nearly a year ago:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/02/news/economy/obamacare-rates/index.html?sr=twmoney0602obamacarestickershock2pVO Dtop

[tailfins]

Wrong again, Chump.

Behold!



Finishing with this :



http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/10/limbaugh-trump-built-the-coalition-the-gop-claims-to-want-now-they-are-badgering-bashing-it/


Still want to push your weak, transparent and bullshit rhetoric?

At least I'm not a TRUMP CHUMP.

[NightTrain]

At least I'm not a TRUMP CHUMP.


I'm still waiting on that DDOS assault.

What's the holdup?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Drummond, I don't know what to say. All I know is it's coming here. The lure of "free" stuff is too strong with some people.

Especially when in a certain group we now had third generation losers "sucking the government tit" and neither grandfather, son or grandson ever had a job in their life. Yet ALL three generations ate well, got fat and lived to roam around (mostly at night) stealing from hard working white people, and "making babies", to serve their dem masters.
Very likely that with obama deliberately creating millions more with his economy wrecking its hit a tipping point.
And that would end up in a massive disaster in this nation like its never seen before IMHO.-TYR

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

At least I'm not a TRUMP CHUMP.

True, you are a muzzy ass-kisser and coward that grovels at the table the muzzy bastards set , waiting for the scraps/crumbs they throw you, IMHO.
BUT HEY, SOMEBODY HAS TO BE THAT LOW AND COWARDLY , IN SERVING THE EVIL BASTARDS, RIGHT?? :laugh:
Not that your slavish devotion to Jafar(a muzzy) ever got you anything here but contempt from decent folks..
Yet, you likely think that it did. -TYR

[fj1200]

A one-liner posted for effect, FJ...

:blabla: You never make arguments, you whine incessantly, proclaim your "conservatism," and then proclaim "necessary" big government. You do not have the capacity to discuss other than with those who are in rote agreement with you.

[Drummond]

:blabla: You never make arguments, you whine incessantly, proclaim your "conservatism," and then proclaim "necessary" big government. You do not have the capacity to discuss other than with those who are in rote agreement with you.

And YOU have illustrated what I've been saying about you. You just can't move past dogma, can you ... a LEFTIE trait !!

I comment on someone insisting on pursuing BOGUS bona fides. I in fact DO make arguments, it's just that you'd rather ignore them, because you find them too difficult to handle. And 'necessary' Big Government sometimes IS .. AND I've provided arguments to prove it !! Where are YOUR arguments, to prove me wrong ????

[tailfins]

True, you are a muzzy ass-kisser and coward that grovels at the table the muzzy bastards set , waiting for the scraps/crumbs they throw you, IMHO.
BUT HEY, SOMEBODY HAS TO BE THAT LOW AND COWARDLY , IN SERVING THE EVIL BASTARDS, RIGHT?? :laugh:
Not that your slavish devotion to Jafar(a muzzy) ever got you anything here but contempt from decent folks..
Yet, you likely think that it did. -TYR

You and some other internet tough guys should come together and defeat Boko Haram with Twitter attacks. You could join a topless Michelle Obama at #LetMyGirlsGo or some such thing with her Boko Haram Twitter attack.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You and some other internet tough guys should come together and defeat Boko Haram with Twitter attacks. You could join a topless Michelle Obama at #LetMyGirlsGo or some such thing with her Boko Haram Twitter attack.

Why? Are you going be camped with them washing their prayer rugs and kissing their asses daily like you do now?
If so, might be worth the trip. Just to deal with them and their dumbass appeasers in one go round..
Did you have to mention something as hideous as obama's other piece of walking, talking shit??--Tyr

[fj1200]

And 'necessary' Big Government sometimes IS ..

What was that about dogma? :rolleyes: You ignore anything that you don't understand and proves you wrong.

EDIT:

But there are countless other threads that you've brought this stuff up in. Try opening one of them.

[Gunny]

One of New Hampshire's key topics was a heroin epidemic in that state. The lesson I learned is that the votes reflect that epidemic.

[fj1200]

One of New Hampshire's key topics was a heroin epidemic in that state. The lesson I learned is that the votes reflect that epidemic.

Does heroin cause crossover voting? :poke:

[Gunny]

Does heroin cause crossover voting? :poke:

Have no idea. But heroin addicts will do most anything for a fix. ;)