It was exactly 34-years-ago today Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 bid to replace President Jimmy Carter. In New York Harbor, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, Reagan gave an inspiring speech about freedom in what would be a campaign that ended in his landslide victory some 60-days later.
There are many pundits, frightened Democrats, even Mitt Romney himself, who scoff at the thought of him running a third time for president in 2016. But 34-years-ago today, it was the beginning of Ronald Reagan�s third try also. Last night in New York City, Mitt Romney could be heard in a roundtable radio discussion hosted by John Catsimatidis beginning his third attempt at the presidency.
Romney spoke with passion of Barack Obama's critical mistakes that have enabled the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) and created the immigration crisis at the country's southern border. Not unlike Ronald Reagan�s style, he was soft-spoken as he said of his 2012 opponent, �Mistakes were made and now we have ISIS."
The two-time presidential contender argued with conviction that ISIS has only gained power because America did not listen to his plan to contain Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He convincingly laid out the reality that a president cannot draw a line in the sand, as Obama did, and then relent when it is crossed.
With refreshing candor missing from any established presidential contenders thus far, Romney said, "If you go back a few years when Syria fell into revolution and tumult, when rebels were pushing against Assad, I laid out what I thought was a prudent course for us to see stability in Syria. Had we followed that course, there's a good chance you would not see an ISIS today."
He accused Obama of failing to heed American intelligence reports of the growing threat while he tended to domestic projects like Obamacare and redistribution of wealth. He said had proposed plan, which much of the mainstream press labeled �warmongering,� been done to back the revolutionaries in Syria, America wouldn�t be where it is today.
It was a very different, more forceful Romney many heard on the radio in New York City last night. Instead of his usual speech that is left unfinished, he finished his thoughts with a highly critical critique of President Obama�s handling of the Middle East crisis. He said, "We saw ISIS roll into Iraq and, instead of attacking them immediately and knocking them in their convoy when they would have been easy to knock down, relatively easy to knock down, the president again watched. And now we're in a position where ISIS has run throughout major portions of Iraq. There have been horrific human rights abuses, tragedies."
America is seeing the new Mitt Romney who would not have basically left the 2012 campaign two weeks before the job was completed. Hillary Clinton and others most certainly are watching this Mitt Romney with keen interest. He is indeed a candidate in 2016. Those who think otherwise are the most worried they are wrong.
Sounds like you fellers think Obama was the better choice.
on the contrary. He would have made obama look like the poser he is. We're past romney. We need a conservative who can bring out the base. Someone who isn't afraid to get mean.
"I Birn Quhil I Se" MacLeod of Lewis I Burn While I See Hold Fast MacLeod of Harris
Sounds like you fellers think Obama was the better choice.
on the contrary. He would have made obama look like the poser he is. We're past romney. We need a conservative who can bring out the base. Someone who isn't afraid to get mean.
Good luck weighting for the Repub Party to back one
Maybe but he would have been far better than the current POS. hopefully there will be better choices this next go round. You must be happy with the current POS by your responses..
Liberalism is a mental disorder that leads to social disease.
The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.
Mittsy isn't my A-#1 choice, but I'd happily vote for him over Hilary.
Ol' Mitt is going to have to grovel a lot to get me into his camp. I'm looking real hard at Ted Cruz, I don't think Mitt can change my mind. It's his move to convince me otherwise. kwg
For liberals and anarchists, power and control is opium, selling envy is the fastest and easiest way to get it. TRR. American conservative. Never trust a white liberal. Malcom X Current NRA member.
God bless Texas----------------------- Old 300 I will remain what i am until the day I die- A HUNTER......Sitting Bull Its not how you pick the booger.. but where you put it !! Roger V Hunter
Granted, I am looking at this from the wrong end of a telescope out here in Japan, but I simply cannot think of a more qualified candidate from among those in the running now. Don't confuse intelligence and decency with weakness. Romney had a clear set of priorities and explained them.
His mistake in the last election was the talk about those with entitlements, many of whom had they only known would have been better off with him in office.
There are always going to be some who oppose a successful businessman as candidate. Believe me, he had to be plenty tough to do what he's done.
Remember that chart of the percentage with business experience that past presidents appointed to their cabinets. The rock bottom has been Obama with 8%. Looking at accomplishments, most of his have been totally out of their depth. Libs rushed to dispute this, but to say that Hillary and Holder, among others, had real world business experience is not persuasive to me.
Of course, to say that Romney is the best choice is not the same as thinking he will crush the opposition.
Norman Solberg International lawyer, lately for 25 years in Japan, now working on trusts in the US, the 3rd greatest tax haven. NRA Life Member for over 50 years, NRA Endowment (2014), Patron (2016).
We need a conservative who can bring out the base.
Ya, "the base" is what didn't turn out to vote for Romney, putting Obama in office for a SECOND time.
Ph&kking retards....
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
While I do like Cruz, Presidential "Texans" per se havent been a boon to conservatism.
Originally Posted by Archerhunter
Quit giving in inch by inch then looking back to lament the mile behind ya and wonder how to preserve those few feet left in front of ya. They'll never stop until they're stopped. That's a fact.
Sounds like you fellers think Obama was the better choice.
Romney was nothing more then Obama Lite. Romney will change his tune to what ever would take to get him elected. We don't need four years of tepid progressive leadership.
Jim
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson
That documentary released about Romney did much to improve his image among the moderate democrats.
Many of whom wish they hadn't have voted for Obama in a second term.
Now they will see Romney as a republican choice that a democrat can stomach.
I mean he'll still be middle of the road socialism and a war hawk - which means spending will still be crazy under his watch - but he'll have an "R" by his name which means its ok to vote for him to the GOP base.
Last edited by KFWA; 09/02/14.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
The fact that Romney is the elected choice of the same people that continually inflicted Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank on us, tells me everything I need to know about Romney. In the primaries, I will support and vote for just about anyone else with my favorite being Cruz.
My biggest fear is when I die my wife will sell my guns for what I told her they cost....
Romney won't run. Had he sat out the last election, he would be the favorite based on name recognition alone. His people ran a lifeless campaign against an incumbent President, thinking that it was 1980 all over again, but it wasn't. He doesn't have a message for anyone to follow.
"The Democrat Party looks like Titanic survivors. Partying and celebrating one moment, and huddled in lifeboats freezing the next". Hatari 2017
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
We need a conservative who can bring out the base. Someone who isn't afraid to get mean.
There isn't one....
Ahem...ME. And I WILL accept the nomonation. Withing 2 weeks of putting the Arizona thru Alabama National Guards on the Mex border and turning loose the Air National Guards on opposing fire from across the river THAT problem will be solved. After rounding up all in the country illegally from the protests, media interviews and other public showings they frequent THAT problem will be solved. After giving public announcement that all remaining illegals have the choice of being bused back to the border in air conditioned comfort by a date certain or being pursued and forcibly removed (and backing it up with physical examples) THAT problem will be solved. After informing any and all employers of the perils they will face if hiring or harboring illegals (and backing it up) THAT problem will be solved.
I could go on and on with other examples like Welfare Fraud, Public Housing Abuse, Threats from Abroad, Subsidy Sucking Foreign Nations that Hate US, Unconstitutional Government Madates, and on and on and on. But I think you get the picture.
In short: I'm The Man. Write me in on Democrat & Republican ballots.
Colossians 3:17 (New King James Version) "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him."
Romney was the first governor of any state in this nation to force homosexual marriage on the citizens of his state.
After the Demonrat controlled state legislature passed a law forbidding sodomite marriage Romney betrayed the citizens of his state and forced this perversion upon the citizens of Massachusetts.
Romney is a Trojan Horse, an elitist and a NWO puppet.
Communist Goals
26. Present homosexuality and degeneracy as normal. 27. Discredit the Bible. 28. Eliminate prayer in the schools.
I will vote for the Republican candidate, no matter who it is. I've got my "druthers" too, but I sure won't stay home and let the Dems win just because I wasn't in favor of the Republican nominee. At least two Supreme Court appointees hang in the balance, and we can't allow the Dems to fill those slots if we value our freedoms and our Country. Just my two cents worth............
If we live long enough, we all have regrets. But the ones that nag at us the most are the ones in which we know we had a choice.
my problem with republicans appointing supremes is I've learned that when people talk about supremes valuing freedom - its "their" version of freedom they are talking about
so a GOP supreme is going to be favoring laws that are just as extreme as a liberal supreme - its just in line with the GOP base.
I'd like to have a supreme that isn't pro-this or anti-that and is about letting Americans at the local or individual determine what they want.
That is real freedom
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
Romney won't run. Had he sat out the last election, he would be the favorite based on name recognition alone. His people ran a lifeless campaign against an incumbent President, thinking that it was 1980 all over again, but it wasn't. He doesn't have a message for anyone to follow.
his problem (and every other GOP candidate) is that he can't have a message for anyone to follow - he has to have a message for everyone to follow - and as soon as he takes a stand that goes against the GOP base - all 14 different one's - they revolt against him and go to the new flavor of the month who is a flipping idiot.
Don't get me wrong - I didn't want Romney, but all that effort Romney had to invest in showing he was a better candidate than say Herman 999 Grab a secretaries ass Cain just made it that much easier for Obama to rake in the money and votes. And Romney had to do that for Bachman, Cain, Santorum.....
Each time he'd climb back to the top of the polls until another candidate would jump up with their appeal to one faction of the base and Romney would have to beat them back down
And it was clear all along that Romney was going to be the least offensive candidate the Repubs could offer.
You guys talk about wanting a candidate that takes a stand but the first one that does will get chewed up and spit out - because there will be 8 other planks on his platform that some faction of the GOP base will take exception to.
So you end up with the most vanilla moderate you can, admit you don't want him but still demand that everyone vote for him.
Last edited by KFWA; 09/02/14.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
And it was clear all along that Romney was going to be the least offensive candidate the Repubs could offer.
Duh... Republican vs. Democrat...dumb vs. evil. Romney and Huntsman were the only R candidates that could lose to Obama, and look who Wall Street bought.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
Sounds like you fellers think Obama was the better choice.
on the contrary. He would have made obama look like the poser he is. We're past romney. We need a conservative who can bring out the base. Someone who isn't afraid to get mean.
Good luck weighting waiting for the Repub Party to back one
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much" Teddy Roosevelt
Romney won't run. Had he sat out the last election, he would be the favorite based on name recognition alone. His people ran a lifeless campaign against an incumbent President, thinking that it was 1980 all over again, but it wasn't. He doesn't have a message for anyone to follow.
his problem (and every other GOP candidate) is that he can't have a message for anyone to follow - he has to have a message for everyone to follow - and as soon as he takes a stand that goes against the GOP base - all 14 different one's - they revolt against him and go to the new flavor of the month who is a flipping idiot.
Don't get me wrong - I didn't want Romney, but all that effort Romney had to invest in showing he was a better candidate than say Herman 999 Grab a secretaries ass Cain just made it that much easier for Obama to rake in the money and votes. And Romney had to do that for Bachman, Cain, Santorum.....
Each time he'd climb back to the top of the polls until another candidate would jump up with their appeal to one faction of the base and Romney would have to beat them back down
And it was clear all along that Romney was going to be the least offensive candidate the Repubs could offer.
You guys talk about wanting a candidate that takes a stand but the first one that does will get chewed up and spit out - because there will be 8 other planks on his platform that some faction of the GOP base will take exception to.
So you end up with the most vanilla moderate you can, admit you don't want him but still demand that everyone vote for him.
THIS.
"There's no schadenfreude like Hillary Clinton schadenfreude." - Tamara Keel
If he runs and people sit on the side lines. Ya get what ya deserve. Maybe even a third term with skeeter. So he can bring us more intensely some of the same new deal chit the worthless piece of chit THE NEW DEAL ROSEVELT gave us. Only on steroids.
Take care, Willie
Cry to the heavens and let slip the dogs of war. For they must feed on the bones of tyranny. In order for men to have freedom and liberty.
If he runs and people sit on the side lines. Ya get what ya deserve. Maybe even a third term with skeeter. So he can bring us more intensely some of the same new deal chit the worthless piece of chit THE NEW DEAL ROSEVELT gave us. Only on steroids.
Those idiots need to realize that the Republican "base" will not show up to vote for a Wall Street, blue blood liberal, period. They never have and never will. It is a FACT, and one that a person would have to be stupid to ignore. I personally believe that the RNC and it's funding parties want exactly what they got with Obama...a sky-high market, funded by the tax payers for eight years. Follow the money...it's the same with all criminal organizations.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
Already, the drummbeat by the blind, dense RINO supporters to vote for whatever [bleep] the Rovites install is getting louder. Slow learners, they. Groundhog Day. It never ends with these 'tards. It's like they're afraid to win.
"The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Citizen" - Dennis Prager LINK
If he runs and people sit on the side lines. Ya get what ya deserve. Maybe even a third term with skeeter. So he can bring us more intensely some of the same new deal chit the worthless piece of chit THE NEW DEAL ROSEVELT gave us. Only on steroids.
Those idiots need to realize that the Republican "base" will not show up to vote for a Wall Street, blue blood liberal, period. They never have and never will. It is a FACT, and one that a person would have to be stupid to ignore. I personally believe that the RNC and it's funding parties want exactly what they got with Obama...a sky-high market, funded by the tax payers for eight years. Follow the money...it's the same with all criminal organizations.
different circumstances but if the base did show up for McCain - a white war hero, elder statesman - it wasn't enough and my guess is because he was preaching the same tired lines of the GOP.
That 47% line may haunt Romney but it was the truth - what he was really saying is I am backed into a corner here because the platform that the GOP demands from me will not allow me to address the 47% .
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
Do ya think it would be easier to undo mistakes that Romney would have made??? Or what SKEETER has piled up??? I rest my case in advance.
Take care, Willie
Listen to yourself...IT'S BESIDE THE POINT. Conservatives will NOT make a showing for a liberal. Thinking they are stupid for it will not change that fact. It's been proven over, and over, and over.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
different circumstances but if the base did show up for McCain - a white war hero, elder statesman - it wasn't enough and my guess is because he was preaching the same tired lines of the GOP.
So, you think Conservatives are just old, white guys too? That's Republicans. Don't get us confused. Conservatives can survive without Republicans. Republicans cannot survive without Conservatives. Conservatives don't like McCain at all. He is a liberal. An old, white, war hero/monger, Republican liberal .
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
You all have to sometime realize that "No Far Right Extremist" will ever win, and if you ever want to see a GOP representative in the white house again he'll have to have some Centralist Views and willing to work with the public and get things done.... something that they've been unwilling to do in quite awhile. The GOP has lost quite a few registered voters to those changing their affiliation to independent or as in California to "Decline to State". Those voters will go either way, and the GOP will not get their vote with hard line far right views!
That's stupid, and exactly why Republicans lose...trying to make liberals happy so they can get 5 million squish votes, while 10 million conservative stay home.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
" Winning isn't everything it's the only thing "(Vince Lombardi) Maybe applying this to there political strategy would be helpful. After all, the definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results right??
Take care, Willie
Cry to the heavens and let slip the dogs of war. For they must feed on the bones of tyranny. In order for men to have freedom and liberty.
Just say no to the Rovites, right now, rather than giving in to, and demanding everyone else does too, their earliest attempts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, yet again. Preaching what you do you emboldens them, but that may be your intent, or maybe it's just denial.
Your way has clearly been proven a miserable, country ruining failure for a few election cycles now. We can't take much more. Seek better. Don't lay down for them again, please, 'cause we're ALL getting screwed when you do & some of us don't like it..
"The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Citizen" - Dennis Prager LINK
Granted, I am looking at this from the wrong end of a telescope out here in Japan, but I simply cannot think of a more qualified candidate from among those in the running now. Don't confuse intelligence and decency with weakness. Romney had a clear set of priorities and explained them.
His mistake in the last election was the talk about those with entitlements, many of whom had they only known would have been better off with him in office.
There are always going to be some who oppose a successful businessman as candidate. Believe me, he had to be plenty tough to do what he's done.
Remember that chart of the percentage with business experience that past presidents appointed to their cabinets. The rock bottom has been Obama with 8%. Looking at accomplishments, most of his have been totally out of their depth. Libs rushed to dispute this, but to say that Hillary and Holder, among others, had real world business experience is not persuasive to me.
Of course, to say that Romney is the best choice is not the same as thinking he will crush the opposition.
He let Obama walk all over him in the last election... Obama, the weakest pres we've ever had walked all over him.. You are grasping at straws I'm afraid.
I'm not sure a Conservative candidate is out there yet, may never again be. I will continue to look for him come election time though.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
" Winning isn't everything it's the only thing "(Vince Lombardi) Maybe applying this to there political strategy would be helpful. After all, the definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results right??
Take care, Willie
Okay...you convinced me. Romney is our man. Maybe Romney/McCain?
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
Didn't say that. Just that if that is how the cards fall. I won't be sitting on my thumb. Waiting for the introduction of President Hillary Clinton. Or what ever POS EMPTY SUIT the constitution ruining democraps see fit to put in the White House
Take care, Willie
Cry to the heavens and let slip the dogs of war. For they must feed on the bones of tyranny. In order for men to have freedom and liberty.
Face it; the Hillabeast is your next President - nothing any republicans can do about it because we don't have a candidate to run that is worth getting on the ticket. These are sad days for sure.
Face it; the Hillabeast is your next President - nothing any republicans can do about it because we don't have a candidate to run that is worth getting on the ticket. These are sad days for sure.
Maybe so. Wall Street has declared that they would prefer Hillary to a conservative and Rove is going to promote whoever they say and destroy all others. That is, unless a grass roots push convinces the money that a true Conservative is the way to win. We'll see what November brings.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
This attitude is why the [bleep] are so in tuned with the DEMOCRAPS. 100% right or 100% wrong they stick together. And they are winning. Think we should try it??????
Take care, Willie
Cry to the heavens and let slip the dogs of war. For they must feed on the bones of tyranny. In order for men to have freedom and liberty.
Didn't say that. Just that if that is how the cards fall. I won't be sitting on my thumb. Waiting for the introduction of President Hillary Clinton. Or what ever POS EMPTY SUIT the constitution ruining democraps see fit to put in the White House
Take care, Willie
I vote every time too.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
This attitude is why the [bleep] are so in tuned with the DEMOCRAPS. 100% right or 100% wrong they stick together. And they are winning. Think we should try it??????
Take care, Willie
People with integrity and morals can't do that. It's a conservative "flaw" when it comes to solidarity.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
Didn't say that. Just that if that is how the cards fall. I won't be sitting on my thumb. Waiting for the introduction of President Hillary Clinton. Or what ever POS EMPTY SUIT the constitution ruining democraps see fit to put in the White House
Take care, Willie
I vote every time too.
I see where your from I sorta figured that.
Take care, Willie
Cry to the heavens and let slip the dogs of war. For they must feed on the bones of tyranny. In order for men to have freedom and liberty.
This attitude is why the [bleep] are so in tuned with the DEMOCRAPS. 100% right or 100% wrong they stick together. And they are winning. Think we should try it??????
Take care, Willie
People with integrity and morals can't do that. It's a conservative "flaw" when it comes to solidarity.
I still try livin by the code. But that is when dealing with like minded people. But I sure jump on the enemy's chest at every opportunity. If you find your self in a fair fight. Ya aint fighting.
Take care, Willie
Cry to the heavens and let slip the dogs of war. For they must feed on the bones of tyranny. In order for men to have freedom and liberty.
Crackpots aside, I'd think that those seriously intending to run will announce such within the next 6 or 7 months... and right now that includes some 32 for the GOP and 7 or 8 for the Democrats.
Well I'm not going to read all eight pages so I'll just answer the OP.
If Romney runs in 2016 he will lose again. Romney is not Reagan.
Running a very liberal Republican against a very liberal Democrat is the action taken by a party that wants to lose an election.
One of the major questions that needs to be answered in the next presidential election is on foreign policy.
Can the US afford to be the policeman of the world. Our economy is in the tank. Our Southern border no longer exist. We no longer have the wherewithal to defend our own sovereignty.
Can we afford to save the world while losing our own country?
My answer is NO!
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
Crackpots aside, I'd think that those seriously intending to run will announce such within the next 6 or 7 months... and right now that includes some 32 for the GOP and 7 or 8 for the Democrats.
And again Hillary is "NOT" going to run!
Phil
I think you are right.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
Well I'm not going to read all eight pages so I'll just answer the OP.
If Romney runs in 2016 he will lose again. Romney is not Reagan.
Running a very liberal Republican against a very liberal Democrat is the action taken by a party that wants to lose an election.
One of the major questions that needs to be answered in the next presidential election is on foreign policy.
Can the US afford to be the policeman of the world. Our economy is in the tank. Our Southern border no longer exist. We no longer have the wherewithal to defend our own sovereignty.
Can we afford to save the world while losing our own country?
My answer is NO!
None of that is a problem, just keep the money printing machine oiled up and running.
The degree of my privacy is no business of yours.
What we've learned from history is that we haven't learned from it.
Sounds like you fellers think Obama was the better choice.
on the contrary. He would have made obama look like the poser he is. We're past romney. We need a conservative who can bring out the base. Someone who isn't afraid to get mean.
I agree it's what we need.
How to get one elected without scaring off the middle is the problem. Anyone remember the Goldwater fiasco?
Face it. The middle elects the president.
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
Most anyone will have a better chance than Romney; he's just the most beatable guy out there. Honestly, is there ANY issue he hasn't been on both sides of?
"Vote for me, I just want the job and I'll say whatever I have to to get it. It's not as if I actually CARE about anything, I just want to be "The Man" " - Mitt Romney
Sounds like you fellers think Obama was the better choice.
Romney was nothing more then Obama Lite. Romney will change his tune to what ever would take to get him elected. We don't need four years of tepid progressive leadership.
Jim
I was on my way out the door to vote against obammy and flip the lever for mitt..
A north east liberal, pro-gay-marriage, pro-abort, cultist...
I just could not do it. I would never vote for that guy. Can't stand him or the middle of the road mainstream repubs who hate all the tea party folks.
In an election where Stalin or Hitler is the choice there is no choice.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
Sounds like you fellers think Obama was the better choice.
on the contrary. He would have made obama look like the poser he is. We're past romney. We need a conservative who can bring out the base. Someone who isn't afraid to get mean.
I agree it's what we need.
How to get one elected without scaring off the middle is the problem. Anyone remember the Goldwater fiasco?
Face it. The middle elects the president.
I voted for Goldwater. He lost to LBJ and the ghost of JFK.
Reagan was payback. The biggest landslide ever, the all time Record is still held by a Conservative.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
Ahhh, yes. Great strategy, R.W. Just sit on your aszz and watch the world go by. De facto, you voted FOR bammy.
Oh God that is such an old and worn out way of saying; please vote for my guy. BOTH parties are killing this country. When you vote for a president, you're choice is Anthrax or Cyanide, and then you get pissed because SOMEONE ELSE didn't join you with our choice of Cyanide.
Those who vote for a 3rd party are using THEIR vote (remember, it's not your vote) to send a message that they're not playing the game anymore and we would like different choices.
If you want to be a party to the destruction of the nation (as long as it's on your terms), that's your right. But don't preach to us who are smart enough to see that the two choices presented aren't viable choices.
Romney could've won, he slaughtered Obama in the first debate and had him on the ropes. Then, he turned into a big morman vagina and tried to play nice.
The problem is that he's just a huge guvmint Republican spender and a statist. So he'd not be getting us out of any financial mess, that ship sailed with Ron Paul.
You can have all the enthusiasm you want, go against the women's rights voters and the minority voters and see how far it'll get you!
The middle of the line voters are there, they're real and even the left doesn't get that! But the left are more to the center than those on the right... and that is the reason the GOP is so far off base and can't win!!!!!
You can have all the enthusiasm you want, go against the women's rights voters and the minority voters and see how far it'll get you! The middle of the line voters are there, they're real and even the left doesn't get that! But the left are more to the center than those on the right... and that is the reason the GOP is so far off base and can't win!!!!!Phil
Your whole post is horse-chitt,but the words in bold print are especially so.
What else could Fire members expect from a left wing jackass.
Communist Goals
26. Present homosexuality and degeneracy as normal. 27. Discredit the Bible. 28. Eliminate prayer in the schools.
I have to laugh when the old farts here are willing to eat a chitt sandwich as long as it's served by someone with an R behind their name,but cry like little babies when that same chitt sandwich is served by someone with a D behind their name.LOL.
Communist Goals
26. Present homosexuality and degeneracy as normal. 27. Discredit the Bible. 28. Eliminate prayer in the schools.
Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.... their ain't no more Reagan's, and even if there was you all wouldn't elect him!
Phil
You got that right, GG. He wouldn't be perceived as conservative enough except through retrospect, and that when compared to an American reject (Dimocrap).
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If being stupid allows me to believe in Him, I'd wish to be a retard. Eisenhower and G Washington should be good company.
Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.... their ain't no more Reagan's, and even if there was you all wouldn't elect him!
Phil
You got that right, GG. He wouldn't be perceived as conservative enough except through retrospect, and that when compared to an American reject (Dimocrap).
I disagree. Wall Street would never let him become the candidate. Back then...votes counted.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
I refuse to believe that the "middle" elected Obama. If the "middle" did that, then we are totally screwed.
The middle did elect Obama, and there were two very big reasons they did it.
1 - McCain 2 - Romney
McCain is a freaking nut! The guy is seriously out there and it's no secret. EVERYONE in congress has a story when McCain has gone bat-chit crazy. And the electorate knew he was a nut.
Romney has been on both sides of every issue under the sun and he comes across as a guy who stands for nothing but getting elected.
Then factor in the financial collapse which happened on Bush's watch. It doesn't matter if it was or wasn't Bush's fault, the dumb people just saw the economy come unraveled on Bush's watch; so it has to be his fault.
Just like a friend of mine who in 2009 was having hard economic times and blamed it all on Obama. Nevermind that the trouble started a full year before Obama took office, it's just who's in there when it all comes crashing down.
Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.... their ain't no more Reagan's, and even if there was you all wouldn't elect him!
Phil
Nope, Reagan preached trickle down economics but actually practiced Keynes. And he raised taxes 6 times, but jut didn't call them tax increases. That would make him un-electable by the right today.
Both the left and the right are 'leftists'...just a different brand.
Bingo. The left are true leftists, while the "right" are false rightists, actually just another brand of leftist (the Trotskyite variety rather than the Stalinist). A leftist wants powerful centralized government. "The left" wants powerful centralized government to implement collectivism, destroy industry, and establish a one-world dictatorial super-state, while the false "right" (actually, just another brand of leftist) wants powerful centralized government to perpetuate war and empire for the banks and big corporations abroad, while maintaining a police state and centrally managed crony capitalism at home. Essentially the same things, with slightly different emphasis.
A true rightist is opposed to a powerful centralized government for any reason, because he correctly perceives it to be anathema to individual liberty.
Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.... their ain't no more Reagan's, and even if there was you all wouldn't elect him!
Phil
You got that right, GG. He wouldn't be perceived as conservative enough except through retrospect, and that when compared to an American reject (Dimocrap).
This is why Reagan was so popular with movement conservatives:
Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.... their ain't no more Reagan's, and even if there was you all wouldn't elect him!
Phil
Nope, Reagan preached trickle down economics but actually practiced Keynes. And he raised taxes 6 times, but jut didn't call them tax increases. That would make him un-electable by the right today.
Reagan went along with some Tip O'Neil tax increases to win his war with the Soviets. But Reagan lowered tax rates, reduced government red tape, and got the free market going. Grew the GDP and cut the unemployment rate at several times that of Obama. The numbers don't lie.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
Both the left and the right are 'leftists'...just a different brand.
Bingo. The left are true leftists, while the "right" are false rightists, actually just another brand of leftist (the Trotskyite variety rather than the Stalinist). A leftist wants powerful centralized government. "The left" wants powerful centralized government to implement collectivism, destroy industry, and establish a one-world dictatorial super-state, while the false "right" (actually, just another brand of leftist) wants powerful centralized government to perpetuate war and empire for the banks and big corporations abroad, while maintaining a police state and centrally managed crony capitalism at home. Essentially the same things, with slightly different emphasis.
A true rightist is opposed to a powerful centralized government for any reason, because he correctly perceives it to be anathema to individual liberty.
You are right except I would say the Left is communist and the Right is fascist.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
Hillary Clinton and others most certainly are watching this Mitt Romney with keen interest. He is indeed a candidate in 2016. Those who think otherwise are the most worried they are wrong.
Perry. I like Perry.He has a excellent economic message.Solid executive experience. Prone to saying and doing really stupid stuff.Was totally unprepared to run for pres. last time.I hope he runs.
Scott Walker. Good economic message.Solid executive experience as gov.No experience running a national campaign.I hope he runs.
Herman Cain. 999. Solid business experience.Dont know [bleep] about how government works.Could care less.
Bachman-Palin. Eye candy.And not ready for prime time.Never will be.
Rick Santorum. A true Conservative,what ever that means.Would appeal to about .005 % of voters on a national ticket.Thats about what he got in the last primary.A "free trader" of the first order.Spent the whole time as senator for Pa. lip locked on chi-com etcho.
Rand Paul. A idea guy.Good message.Not quite the retard as daddy was. No executive,national campaign or business experience.I like him but I dont think hes ready.Hope he runs anyway.
Paul Ryan. A idea guy.Good message.National campaign experience as Romneys VP.Light on business and executive experience.I like him and I hope he runs.
Ted Cruz. Get a kick out of watching him humiliate libtards. Democrats are not ISIS.We dont need to destroy them.We need to change there minds.His take no Prisoners attitude toward the dems alienates center right independent voters. Want a republican in the white house.? Get center right independent voters on your side.Never happen with this guy.
Mitt Romney. Romney beats them all on name recognition alone in the republican primary. I also think he the best qualified for the job..
Romney vs. Kun-ton.In the national election.
Just thinking about what Kun-ton would do to the SCOTUS makes me sick. Should make all of you sick.
Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.... their ain't no more Reagan's, and even if there was you all wouldn't elect him!
Phil
Nope, Reagan preached trickle down economics but actually practiced Keynes. And he raised taxes 6 times, but jut didn't call them tax increases. That would make him un-electable by the right today.
Reagan went along with some Tip O'Neil tax increases to win his war with the Soviets. But Reagan lowered tax rates, reduced government red tape, and got the free market going. Grew the GDP and cut the unemployment rate at several times that of Obama. The numbers don't lie.
How do you increase taxes and lower tax rates at the same time? Voodoo economics.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
Reagan went along with some Tip O'Neil tax increases to win his war with the Soviets. But Reagan lowered tax rates, reduced government red tape, and got the free market going. Grew the GDP and cut the unemployment rate at several times that of Obama. The numbers don't lie.
How do you increase taxes and lower tax rates at the same time? Voodoo economics.
Good God Almighty! Do I really have to explain that all taxes are not created equal?
Some of those so-called Reagan tax increases were simply ending some deductions. The federal gas tax went from 4 to 9 cents...temporary. Higher cigarette taxes. The worst were raising the capital gains tax rate and the corporate rate in 1986.
Much of this came about because Reagan was the first to get suckered into a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. �Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982� Somehow the cuts never happened and coupled with the Cold War spending increases the national debt tripled.
Meanwhile back at the ranch...Reagan got HIS tax cuts. The federal income tax with 16 brackets of 14 to 70 percent were chopped to TWO brackets of 15 and 28 percent. Capital gains tax went down to 20 percent, but in 1986 kicked up to 28 percent.
The unemployment rate dropped from 7 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988. The inflation rate dropped from 10 percent to 4 percent. GDP growth was at -0.03 percent in 1980 under Carter. 4.1 percent in 1988 under Reagan. Federal tax receipts increased 60 percent.
Reaganonomics worked.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
If that liberal, neocon, RINO, Romney, repeats his dismal '12 performance when he was landslides by an even bigger moron, he will assure Hillary's Oval Office waltz.
There is absolutely no ideological difference between Romeny and Obama. They were equally paired liberals.
Please do not lose sight of the fact that was exposed to American constituents in '12: authentic conservatives will never again vote for a liberal, neocon, RINO. If you guys nominate another, I can tell you right now how it'll turn out.
Authentic conservatives know that there is no substantive difference between liberal, neocon, RINO's and their ringleaders of the Democratic Party.
�If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.� ***US President James Madison***
Agreed. They did. Lowering incentives to seek tax shelters by reducing rates results in higher revenues and stimulates economic activity..
TRH,
I agree that we are in desperate need of economic reform. But that lies far beneath the iceberg that will sink America. We have to revert to the principles upon which our nation was founded. We have to restore rule of law. Rule of men is destroying our country. As important or more so, we MUST restore lost liberties. Land of the free has become a cruel joke. We're free to do and buy what politicians and bureaucrats allow us to do or buy. Worse, we've fastened shackles to ourselves.
We need a forth branch of government: public integrity unit. It will be staffed from investigators on loan to it for five years. These investigators will come from local law enforcement agencies. They will not be subjected to federal political/bureaucratic pressure. They will be commissioned with ultimate autonomy. They will have plenary authority and jurisdiction to investigate every elected politician and appointed bureaucrat including the president and US Supreme Court justices. If criminal charges are determined to be warranted, case agents will refer their cases to independent attorneys who must have impeccable records prior to appointment. That way, Lerner's homeboys won't be investigating her. Instead, it could well be that an investigator on loan from Seattle Police Department will be the case agent, not some lackey working in Obama's US DOJ. That way again, there will be no fox guarding the henhouse.
High on the list is evicting the UN from Manhattan, eliminating the Fed, and severing ties with every treaty that binds our military to fight battles that are none of our damned business. Presidents have transformed our military in to Meyer Lansky's Murder, Inc.
In no way, shape, or form does the country in which we live resemble the country that was the patrimony of our Founding Fathers.
�Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.� ***Benjamin Franklin***
�If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.� ***US President James Madison***
I refuse to believe that the "middle" elected Obama. If the "middle" did that, then we are totally screwed.
The middle did elect Obama, and there were two very big reasons they did it.
1 - McCain 2 - Romney
McCain is a freaking nut! The guy is seriously out there and it's no secret. EVERYONE in congress has a story when McCain has gone bat-chit crazy. And the electorate knew he was a nut.
Romney has been on both sides of every issue under the sun and he comes across as a guy who stands for nothing but getting elected.
Then factor in the financial collapse which happened on Bush's watch. It doesn't matter if it was or wasn't Bush's fault, the dumb people just saw the economy come unraveled on Bush's watch; so it has to be his fault.
Just like a friend of mine who in 2009 was having hard economic times and blamed it all on Obama. Nevermind that the trouble started a full year before Obama took office, it's just who's in there when it all comes crashing down.
The "middle" did not elect anybody, and only liberals believe they did. The numbers show that approximately 4 million less Republicans have voted in each of the last three Presidential elections. When the choices are a Democrat, or a Republican that acts like a Democrat, lots of conservatives lose faith in the game and don't play. This will continue as long as Wall Street and the Roves make sure a pussified RINO is the candidate.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
The "middle" did not elect anybody, and only liberals believe they did. The numbers show that approximately 4 million less Republicans have voted in each of the last three Presidential elections. When the choices are a Democrat, or a Republican that acts like a Democrat, lots of conservatives lose faith in the game and don't play. This will continue as long as Wall Street and the Roves make sure a pussified RINO is the candidate.
Absolutely right on the mark.
The middle is a fabrication of the lame stream media,who believe they can dupe citizens into moving left with their inane lies.
Communist Goals
26. Present homosexuality and degeneracy as normal. 27. Discredit the Bible. 28. Eliminate prayer in the schools.
Wouldn't he have to be substantially different than the opposition to crush them?
Seems like an "if ya can't beat em join em strategy" but I know many Republicans care only about winning so I suppose it makes sense. A republican big gov't commie is better than a democratic one?
I refuse to believe that the "middle" elected Obama. If the "middle" did that, then we are totally screwed.
The middle did elect Obama, and there were two very big reasons they did it.
1 - McCain 2 - Romney
McCain is a freaking nut! The guy is seriously out there and it's no secret. EVERYONE in congress has a story when McCain has gone bat-chit crazy. And the electorate knew he was a nut.
Romney has been on both sides of every issue under the sun and he comes across as a guy who stands for nothing but getting elected.
Then factor in the financial collapse which happened on Bush's watch. It doesn't matter if it was or wasn't Bush's fault, the dumb people just saw the economy come unraveled on Bush's watch; so it has to be his fault.
Just like a friend of mine who in 2009 was having hard economic times and blamed it all on Obama. Nevermind that the trouble started a full year before Obama took office, it's just who's in there when it all comes crashing down.
The "middle" did not elect anybody, and only liberals believe they did. The numbers show that approximately 4 million less Republicans have voted in each of the last three Presidential elections. When the choices are a Democrat, or a Republican that acts like a Democrat, lots of conservatives lose faith in the game and don't play. This will continue as long as Wall Street and the Roves make sure a pussified RINO is the candidate.
In the 2008 election, the Left and of course, the Blacks were very enthused about voting for the first Black President. The Right was less than enthused about McCain and the past eight years of Bush. They were enthused enough about Palin to temporarily take the lead in the polls away from Obama. Then came the financial meltdown just before the election and it was all over.
In the 2010 mid-term election, a lot of the Left and a lot of Blacks stayed home. A lot of really pissed off Conservatives showed up and voted in the largest mid-term Conservative Landslide in our lifetime.
The GOPe ignored that lesson in the 2012 election and enough doubly pissed off swing states Conservatives stayed home and put Obama back in the White House.
Now, everybody is pissed off and the 2014 election is in two months.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
When the choices are a Democrat, or a Republican that acts like a Democrat, lots of conservatives lose faith in the game and don't play. This will continue as long as Wall Street and the Roves make sure a pussified RINO is the candidate.
Yep , even when you win you lose. Pretty effective strategy to "self disenfranchise" the conservative portion of the population.
If the Party of Democratic Light nominates another liberal, neocon, RINO, it won't matter who Democrats nominate. She or he will win. Period.
A word to the wise: last election two very voluminous shills known as Steve_No and RISJR worked diligently to destroy the only authentic conservative running in the election. They used every Saul Alinsky trick in Rules for Radicals to assure that either Romeny or Obama would win, there being not an iota of substantive difference between Romney and Obama. The shills won either way while liberty and America lost. And make no mistake, as a few posters here forewarned: the second the Republicans nominated Romney, Obama had the election wrapped up.
If there is no authentic conservative running in '12, does anyone think it will matter who loses? You can count on my not voting again.
�If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.� ***US President James Madison***
Wouldn't he have to be substantially different than the opposition to crush them?
Seems like an "if ya can't beat em join em strategy" but I know many Republicans care only about winning so I suppose it makes sense. A republican big gov't commie is better than a democratic one?
NO Romney, NO Bush , NO Christie and NOT that whackjob McCain.
+1
The only nearly tolerable candidate to a real conservative voter, who seems a possibility to get the nod, is Rand Paul.
Rand Paul is bragging about being to the LEFT of Hillary Clinton.
That ought to work...
Extra-ordinary claims require proof. There's no one to his right in the US Senate.
Easy look-up on Breitbart TV 24 Aug 2014 Rand Paul: �Dems Scared I Will Run Left of 'Hawk' Hillary� Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said in the 2016 Presidential election he would be able to attract independents and "even some Democrats" voters nervous about entering into a new Middle East war with a "gung-ho" President Hillary Clinton.
Paul said �I think the American public is coming more and more to where I am and that those people, like Hillary Clinton, who�she fought her own war, 'Hillary�s war,' you know?"� "And I think that�s what scares the Democrats the most: Is that in a general election, were I to run, there�s going to be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, �You know what? We are tired of war. We�re worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war because she�s so gung-ho," he added.
�If you want to see a transformational election in our country, let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton, and you�ll see a transformation like you�ve never seen," the Kentucky junior senator concluded.�
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
Easy look-up on Breitbart TV 24 Aug 2014 Rand Paul: �Dems Scared I Will Run Left of 'Hawk' Hillary� Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said in the 2016 Presidential election he would be able to attract independents and "even some Democrats" voters nervous about entering into a new Middle East war with a "gung-ho" President Hillary Clinton.
Paul said �I think the American public is coming more and more to where I am and that those people, like Hillary Clinton, who�she fought her own war, 'Hillary�s war,' you know?"� "And I think that�s what scares the Democrats the most: Is that in a general election, were I to run, there�s going to be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, �You know what? We are tired of war. We�re worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war because she�s so gung-ho," he added.
�If you want to see a transformational election in our country, let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton, and you�ll see a transformation like you�ve never seen," the Kentucky junior senator concluded.�
When you make schit up, and are then challenged on it, why do you think it adequate to post as proof a non sequitur? If you don't have a citation of where he said he was moving left of Hillary, just admit you made it up. It makes you look even worse to post something completely off-point as if it's proof of what you said.
Easy look-up on Breitbart TV 24 Aug 2014 Rand Paul: �Dems Scared I Will Run Left of 'Hawk' Hillary� Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said in the 2016 Presidential election he would be able to attract independents and "even some Democrats" voters nervous about entering into a new Middle East war with a "gung-ho" President Hillary Clinton.
Paul said �I think the American public is coming more and more to where I am and that those people, like Hillary Clinton, who�she fought her own war, 'Hillary�s war,' you know?"� "And I think that�s what scares the Democrats the most: Is that in a general election, were I to run, there�s going to be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, �You know what? We are tired of war. We�re worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war because she�s so gung-ho," he added.
�If you want to see a transformational election in our country, let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton, and you�ll see a transformation like you�ve never seen," the Kentucky junior senator concluded.�
When you make schit up, and are then challenged on it, why do you think it adequate to post as proof a non sequitur? If you don't have a citation of where he said he was moving left of Hillary, just admit you made it up. It makes you look even worse to post something completely off-point as if it's proof of what you said.
The fact that you are totally clueless does not give you the right to change my words or their meaning.
I clearly said �Rand Paul is bragging� I DID NOT say that he is to the left of Hillary.
I posted his words where he was doing exactly that. He has called her a �gung-ho� �war hawk�
The context of his words is that she stands to his right. There may be an argument as to which one really stands where. But you are lying about me making up what he said.
Where is your proof that what he said is a non sequitur?
Here is more of what he has said as he pushes Hillary as far right as he can push: "Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian rebel groups have it backward. Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before asking some important questions. Her successor�John Kerry�was no better, calling the failure to strike Syria a 'Munich moment,'" Rand Paul
"To interventionists like former Secretary of State�Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State," he writes. "We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS." Rand Paul
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
I clearly said �Rand Paul is bragging� I DID NOT say that he is to the left of Hillary.
I know exactly what you said. I changed nothing. You've yet to cite where he said that. Or are you confused about the definition of leftism vs rightism?
Rand Paul's position is that both major parties are dominated at the institutional level by leftists, and that there are voters in the Democrat party who, once explained the benefits of rightism (small government, non-intervention, decentralization of governance, strictly limited national government, etc.), would appreciate them. I think he's right. That's how Reagan won two landslides.
Rand Paul clearly has put Hillary to the Right as he appeals to the Left. My citations stand.
You offered no citation of Rand Paul saying he was left of Hillary. You made it up and, when challenged, showed a whole page full of off-point quotes. That's your typical strategy when challenged on your BS.
Easy look-up on Breitbart TV 24 Aug 2014 Rand Paul: �Dems Scared I Will Run Left of 'Hawk' Hillary� Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said in the 2016 Presidential election he would be able to attract independents and "even some Democrats" voters nervous about entering into a new Middle East war with a "gung-ho" President Hillary Clinton.
Last edited by BOWSINGER; 09/03/14.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
Reagan went along with some Tip O'Neil tax increases to win his war with the Soviets. But Reagan lowered tax rates, reduced government red tape, and got the free market going. Grew the GDP and cut the unemployment rate at several times that of Obama. The numbers don't lie.
How do you increase taxes and lower tax rates at the same time? Voodoo economics.
Good God Almighty! Do I really have to explain that all taxes are not created equal?
Some of those so-called Reagan tax increases were simply ending some deductions. The federal gas tax went from 4 to 9 cents...temporary. Higher cigarette taxes. The worst were raising the capital gains tax rate and the corporate rate in 1986.
Much of this came about because Reagan was the first to get suckered into a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. �Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982� Somehow the cuts never happened and coupled with the Cold War spending increases the national debt tripled.
Meanwhile back at the ranch...Reagan got HIS tax cuts. The federal income tax with 16 brackets of 14 to 70 percent were chopped to TWO brackets of 15 and 28 percent. Capital gains tax went down to 20 percent, but in 1986 kicked up to 28 percent.
The unemployment rate dropped from 7 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988. The inflation rate dropped from 10 percent to 4 percent. GDP growth was at -0.03 percent in 1980 under Carter. 4.1 percent in 1988 under Reagan. Federal tax receipts increased 60 percent.
Reaganonomics worked.
In other words, Keynesian economics or as Bush put it voodoo economics.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
Rand Paul's statement about ISIS today puts him squarely out of the Libertarian ranks and right in with Republicans.
If anyone thinks we're going to "destroy ISIS militarily" (quoting Rand Paul) without a re-invasion of Iraq, they're fooling themselves. So supporting Rand Paul means supporting ANOTHER war in IRAQ.
Rand Paul's statement about ISIS today puts him squarely out of the Libertarian ranks and right in with Republicans.
If anyone thinks we're going to "destroy ISIS militarily" (quoting Rand Paul) without a re-invasion of Iraq, they're fooling themselves. So supporting Rand Paul means supporting ANOTHER war in IRAQ.
Rand Paul's statement about ISIS today puts him squarely out of the Libertarian ranks and right in with Republicans.
If anyone thinks we're going to "destroy ISIS militarily" (quoting Rand Paul) without a re-invasion of Iraq, they're fooling themselves. So supporting Rand Paul means supporting ANOTHER war in IRAQ.
Anyone who runs for the presidency supports war that's why they are there. I also believe that all politicians especially those who run for president are narcissistic psychopaths.
Voting for anyone for president and expecting a different outcome each time is insane.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
What role did the massive military government spending play in Reagan's economy? Spending under Reagan was unprecedented in peacetime. Are you saying that played no role in Reagan's economy?
Look, I was (and still am) 100% in support of Reagan's tax cuts, 70% is just horrible. But that is not what stimulated the economy. Tax cuts for the rich add almost no perceptible value to the economy as a whole; but they're still the right thing to do.
Conservatives have a bad habit of thinking that tax cuts stimulate the rich to spend more on their businesses. They forget there's a big difference between INDIVIDUAL taxes and CORPORATE taxes. The line of "if you raise my taxes I'll cut your job" is the most ignorant statement on taxation anyone has ever made.
For tax code to influence the economy as a whole, there are two places where you can affect a change.
1 - Corporate taxes, specifically on Capital Purchases. Capital Expenditure is "stuff, buildings, and equipment" and typically needs a butt in a seat to occupy/use. That creates jobs.
2 - Decreasing personal income taxes on the middle class. The middle class is what drives our "consumer economy", NOT the upper class. The rich don't spend their money like you and I do (buying things), that's why they're rich. They spend their money typically on paper investments. Buying anything other than an IPO in the stock market, doesn't do anything for the economy at all.
Reagan's economics was 100% Keynesian; he just never told anyone that it was. The ONLY difference between Reagan and the Democrats was what Reagan spent the money on; military vs. social. Hell, just read up on the stuff written by Reagan's economists.
I wish conservatives knew something about economics beyond the drivel that Rush Limbaugh spews. Rush calls Keynesian economics spending your way to prosperity, which is not what it is; not even close. Keynesian advocates government spending to focus the spend during down economic times. Also when in a recession and people stop spending, government becomes the spender of last resort. Once things level out, Keynes advocated policies that sounded a lot more like Milton Friedman. ETA - Keynes was VERY big on paying down debt during good economic times, so you have room to maneuver during bad economic times.
"Conservatives" don't get that because they fundamentally don't understand macroeconomics.
Rand Paul's statement about ISIS today puts him squarely out of the Libertarian ranks and right in with Republicans.
If anyone thinks we're going to "destroy ISIS militarily" (quoting Rand Paul) without a re-invasion of Iraq, they're fooling themselves. So supporting Rand Paul means supporting ANOTHER war in IRAQ.
Easy look-up on Breitbart TV 24 Aug 2014 Rand Paul: �Dems Scared I Will Run Left of 'Hawk' Hillary� Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said in the 2016 Presidential election he would be able to attract independents and "even some Democrats" voters nervous about entering into a new Middle East war with a "gung-ho" President Hillary Clinton.
Where'd he say he was going to do that, though? Him saying what NBC is scared is going to happen doesn't cut it. He knows that NBC is as screwed up in their understanding of left and right as you are.
Rand Paul's statement about ISIS today puts him squarely out of the Libertarian ranks and right in with Republicans.
If anyone thinks we're going to "destroy ISIS militarily" (quoting Rand Paul) without a re-invasion of Iraq, they're fooling themselves. So supporting Rand Paul means supporting ANOTHER war in IRAQ.
Ding.
Whoa...we agree on something.
We agree on a lot of things, like regulating the crooks down on Wall Street. That last post you made was brilliant btw.
Sounds like you fellers think Obama was the better choice.
on the contrary. He would have made obama look like the poser he is. We're past romney. We need a conservative who can bring out the base. Someone who isn't afraid to get mean.
+1
"I didn't realize we had so many snipers in this country." by J23
Rush calls Keynesian economics spending your way to prosperity, which is not what it is; not even close.
Just thought I'd expand on this a bit. There's a reason why Rush says that. It's because that's what Democrats think Keynesian economics is too. They think we should just spend willy-nilly and everything will be rosy. Neither side really understands macroeconomics.
Rush calls Keynesian economics spending your way to prosperity, which is not what it is; not even close.
Just thought I'd expand on this a bit. There's a reason why Rush says that. It's because that's what Democrats think Keynesian economics is too. They think we should just spend willy-nilly and everything will be rosy. Neither side really understands macroeconomics.
No, Rush is right. Keynes prescribed, during economic slumps, for governments to spend more in order to stimulate the economy, which requires a flexible currency, i.e., the ability to bring money into existence (i.e., increase the money supply by manipulating interest rates and borrowing). Once the slump has recovered, however, Keynes prescribed contracting the currency and paying off debt. Unfortunately, he didn't account for human nature (as he didn't understand human nature), i.e., politicians will never be willing to contract currency and pay off debt, because 1) they fear "rocking the economic boat," and 2) they don't want to cut back on supplying their constituents with the goodies. So what you get, where the rubber meets the road, with Keynesian economics is perpetual inflation and perpetually increasing spending and debt.
You all have to sometime realize that "No Far Right Extremist" will ever win, and if you ever want to see a GOP representative in the white house again he'll have to have some Centralist Views and willing to work with the public and get things done.... something that they've been unwilling to do in quite awhile. The GOP has lost quite a few registered voters to those changing their affiliation to independent or as in California to "Decline to State". Those voters will go either way, and the GOP will not get their vote with hard line far right views!
Phil
Whenever I see/hear/read that, what's really there is "give in and accelerate the process of degrading the country."
No, Rush is right. Keynes prescribed, during economic slumps, for governments to spend more in order to stimulate the economy, which requires a flexible currency, i.e., the ability to bring money into existence (i.e., increase the money supply by manipulating interest rates and borrowing). Once the slump has recovered, however, Keynes prescribed contracting the currency and paying off debt. Unfortunately, he didn't account for human nature (as he didn't understand human nature), i.e., politicians will never be willing to contract currency and pay off debt, because 1) they fear "rocking the economic boat," and 2) they don't want to cut back on supplying their constituents with the goodies. So what you get, where the rubber meets the road, with Keynesian economics is perpetual inflation and perpetually increasing spending and debt.
No, Rush is right. Keynes prescribed, during economic slumps, for governments to spend more in order to stimulate the economy, which requires a flexible currency, i.e., the ability to bring money into existence (i.e., increase the money supply by manipulating interest rates and borrowing). Once the slump has recovered, however, Keynes prescribed contracting the currency and paying off debt. Unfortunately, he didn't account for human nature (as he didn't understand human nature), i.e., politicians will never be willing to contract currency and pay off debt, because 1) they fear "rocking the economic boat," and 2) they don't want to cut back on supplying their constituents with the goodies. So what you get, where the rubber meets the road, with Keynesian economics is perpetual inflation and perpetually increasing spending and debt.
No, Rush is right. Keynes prescribed, during economic slumps, for governments to spend more in order to stimulate the economy, which requires a flexible currency, i.e., the ability to bring money into existence (i.e., increase the money supply by manipulating interest rates and borrowing). Once the slump has recovered, however, Keynes prescribed contracting the currency and paying off debt. Unfortunately, he didn't account for human nature (as he didn't understand human nature), i.e., politicians will never be willing to contract currency and pay off debt, because 1) they fear "rocking the economic boat," and 2) they don't want to cut back on supplying their constituents with the goodies. So what you get, where the rubber meets the road, with Keynesian economics is perpetual inflation and perpetually increasing spending and debt.
I guess you missed the 90's??
Did they cut back on spending in the 90s?
There were some cuts to curtail the growth of government, but no president (that I'm aware of)has actually shrunk the size of the government, or spent less than he did the previous year. There have been two balanced budgets in my lifetime, one under Kennedy and one under Clinton. But we did actually eliminate the deficit in the 90's and paid down a good deal of debt.
No president or congress will ever actually shrink the size of government.
Rand Paul's statement about ISIS today puts him squarely out of the Libertarian ranks and right in with Republicans.
If anyone thinks we're going to "destroy ISIS militarily" (quoting Rand Paul) without a re-invasion of Iraq, they're fooling themselves. So supporting Rand Paul means supporting ANOTHER war in IRAQ.
Ding.
Whoa...we agree on something.
Did the wind just blow? Rand Paul is now a War Hawk same as Hillary? Must be a different day of the week. Welcome to the Rand Paul world of poll driven policies and principles.
Rand Paul: 'Destroy' ISIS Now Breitbart News by Matthew Boyle 3 Sept 2014 Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is calling for President Barack Obama to convene a joint session of Congress and make the case that the United States must �destroy� the Islamic State terrorist organization.
"If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily,� Paul said in a statement to the Associated Press late last week.
The comment is similar to what Paul said in a recent interview with Breitbart News, in which he said he would convene a joint session of Congress if he were president to make the case for military action against ISIS.
Paul told Breitbart News last week that �if I were in President Obama�s shoes at this time, I would have called Congress back, I would have had a joint session of Congress, and I would have said �this is why ISIS is a threat to the United States, to the stability of the region, to our embassy, to our diplomats, and this is why I�m asking you today to authorize air attacks.��
Last edited by BOWSINGER; 09/03/14.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
[ There have been two balanced budgets in my lifetime, one under Kennedy and one under Clinton. But we did actually eliminate the deficit in the 90's and paid down a good deal of debt.
No president or congress will ever actually shrink the size of government.
Newt got four balanced budgets pushing Clinton to the center.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
There were some cuts to curtail the growth of government, but no president (that I'm aware of)has actually shrunk the size of the government, or spent less than he did the previous year. There have been two balanced budgets in my lifetime, one under Kennedy and one under Clinton. But we did actually eliminate the deficit in the 90's and paid down a good deal of debt.
No president or congress will ever actually shrink the size of government.
BOWs, that was then and this is now with so much "change" in betwixt.
The next �Reagan� would hold all the Romney states and bring back enough Conservatives in swing states to reach 272 electoral votes.
The so-called �middle� is a myth. Voter �enthusiasm� wins elections.
BOWS, I agree with you 100% but who might that "next Reagan" be? Not Romney (again), I'm thinking.
Right now, most of those (us) folks of the Conservative leaning persuasion are winding their nuts and scratching their watches.
If we just win both houses of Congress in Nov. I'll be elated.
I do not know who might be the �next Reagan� will be, but I am still going with the Lady who has molded her whole political career on Reagan and Thatcher.
If the Lady so chooses and gets into the race, we will see what happens.
I had a little extra time this weekend and reviewed what happened after McCain called Palin at the fair grounds. If Sarah can repeat what she did with her 2008 RNC speech and her debate and other campaign speeches. She will win the nomination.
No one can match her in her ability to reach out and over the MSM and touch voters as Reagan did. There has been a lot of keynote events and speeches since then that reinforce my point.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
Even if the Republicans get both Houses nothing will change as the Emperor will continue issuing decrees as he has a pen and a phone.
Then impeach the SOB! No excuse next year of any impending election.
With both Houses, just lay the House impeachment articles on his desk and our semi-retired president may well pull a Nixon and not go under oath before a pissed off Senate.
Then both Houses can lay a balanced budget on Biden's desk and if he still wants to run in 2016, the old Senate wheeler-dealer will sign it to separate him from the Obama record and Hillary.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Logo_Schmidt_%26_Bender.jpg){kind=logo}
![[Linked Image]](http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/192/492/full-retard.gif)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/medium/45390.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://tedcruz.s3.amazonaws.com/_/merchandise/sticker1.jpg)
