SideTracker Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 ^ :lol: Cruz and Dewhurst must be quite the whiners as well with their negative campaign ads. I was watching some show that for thirty minutes first a Cruz campaign whining ad then one by Dewhurst and back and forth, Cruz , then Dewhurst. How is John Jay Meyers whining when he is pointing out what is? Let's see, a politician with a wife that ranks high within a financial institution that benefited over its own gambles knowing Uncle Sam would be there for the rescue. Yes I think it does matter a high ranking public official is married to someone of Goldman Sachs corporate status. What "Tea Party" supports Goldman Sachs? Wait, Ted said in another article he does not identify with so called "Tea Party" labeling of his candidacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Does John Jay Meyers not realize that the Tea Party is not exclusive to Libertarians and Constitutionalists ? Since Cruz isn't a Republican and has no chance of winning the election, he wants to say Cruz hijacked the Tea Party. Give me a break, Cruz hasn't served one day as Senator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SideTracker Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 ^ When John Jay Meyers said "The Tea Party originally fought for sound fiscal policy, lower taxes, and free markets. But now establishment Republicans like Cruz have hijacked it...", I took that to mean what he said. In his opinion the 'tea party' is hijacked and John considers Cruz more closely knitted to establishment goppers. Thank goodness Dewhurst did not win anyway. The hierarchy of Texas Bush era goppers may have weakened enough they no longer have influence waiting in the wings for office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Wayne Allyn Root, 2008 Libertarian Party’s Vice Presidential nominee and political commentator, resigned this morning from the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) to, according to his resignation letter, “elect good people and change the direction of this country outside of a third party.” In the letter to the LNC, which is available at Independent Political Report, Root explains that his decision much is not unlike those of previous Libertarian Party presidential candidates, including Ron Paul and David Koch; both of whom left the LP to become prominent Republicans. When I asked if he was now backing Mitt Romney, Root responded, “I am,” adding, “I don’t deny that Romney and Ryan aren’t libertarians, but Romney is a pro-business capitalist and Obama is a Marxist-socialist.” “The economy has been trashed. This is about my kids’ future, it’s about my businesses,” said Root. “There is no hope for America if Obama is re-elected.” Root, who lives near Las Vegas, noted in his resignation letter that he “plan to join Tea Party U.S. Senators like Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee in the near future, representing the great state of Nevada.” It’s obviously too late for him to run this year. It would 2016 before Root could make a run, presumably against Sen. Harry Reid; though Root told me that he believes the Democratic leader will retire. Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia and the 2008 Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee, backed Newt Gingrich during the GOP primary. Barr has indicated that he will support Romney in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Romney is a keynesian socialist and Root knows it.....it's a shame that some people just HAVE to be with a group to feel self esteem.....Root sold his soul to the establishment.....simple as that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 If Obama does not lose, it will all be moot anyway. Further, the tea party has effectively taken over the GOP at every level except the presidential nomination process this year. Why start one from scratch when you have basically co-opted one and you just need one or two more election cycles to take full control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 If Obama does not lose, it will all be moot anyway. Further, the tea party has effectively taken over the GOP at every level except the presidential nomination process this year. Why start one from scratch when you have basically co-opted one and you just need one or two more election cycles to take full control? If barry DOES lose, it's moot because there's no difference......the TEA party does not control the goppers in congress because the congressional goppers seem to be trying to outspend the dims.....the TEA party has been effectively eliminated by the same group mentality that is on display with Root's decision.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 If barry DOES lose, it's moot because there's no difference...... myth ... open your eyes there IS a clear difference on hundreds of vital issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 myth ... open your eyes there IS a clear difference on hundreds of vital issues NONE of those issues are bankrupting us.....open YOUR eyes....ECONOMIC POLICY IS ALL THAT MATTERS....and on THAT issue, once again, BOTH are keynesian socialists...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 myth ... open your eyes there IS a clear difference on hundreds of vital issues Blind leading the blind... Well chalk it up to Obi-Wan Kenobi (Star Wars Episode IV) to ask the following question: Who's more foolish, the fool or the one that follows the fool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Blind leading the blind... exactly what I was thinking :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96Bearkat Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 NONE of those issues are bankrupting us.....open YOUR eyes....ECONOMIC POLICY IS ALL THAT MATTERS....and on THAT issue, once again, BOTH are keynesian socialists...... I am no Romney supporter as you know. I am interested in why you identify him as a demand side economist. I consider him to be a supply side economist as his Republican predecessors perhaps not including Bush 2. Is there somethign in his record that I am not aware of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 They all learned economics in college.....Keynes and his economic theories are all that are taught and recognized as legitimate by the vast majority of economics professors..... ANYONE who believes that the government has a role in the economy and the free market is by definition, a socialist...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Can you list the hundreds of vital issues? I believe it time to vote the lesser of five evils, Gary Johnson. After the countless discussions on here that have vividly pointed out the differences you refuse to see, I doubt if would do you any good to list them for you again. They would go right over your head again because of where you have your head buried. LOL Go ahead and vote for the pothead Johnson. You know, I do believe I have stumbled on your reason for wasting your vote on Johnson ... you want marijuana to be legal. That's it, isn't it? :P :P :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camuchs Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 After the countless discussions on here that have vividly pointed out the differences you refuse to see, I doubt if would do you any good to list them for you again. They would go right over your head again because of where you have your head buried. LOL Go ahead and vote for the pothead Johnson. You know, I do believe I have stumbled on your reason for wasting your vote on Johnson ... you want marijuana to be legal. That's it, isn't it? :P :P :P If being a pothead helps one to climb Mt. Everest, Mt. McKinley, Mt. Kilimanjaro, and compete in at least 4 Ironmans and numerous triathelons AND balance budgets with surpluses.... then legalize it ‘tout de suite’! If you really believed that, you would have no problem listing the differences here now.....there may be someone out there reading this that is on the fence....you would be doing them a great service....at the very least you could list the threads where the undecided folks can find them......the hundreds of differences that is. I think there are not 100's of differences on vital issues and that is why you can not/will not post them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I believe you have stumbled and your head is now in the pot. Please convince me with your long list of differences. Both parties have spent this country into abyss. Both candidates represent the same result. That would be a similarity. You bore me. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 They all learned economics in college.....Keynes and his economic theories are all that are taught and recognized as legitimate by the vast majority of economics professors..... ANYONE who believes that the government has a role in the economy and the free market is by definition, a socialist...... Now wait a minute. Didn't you, as a teacher, have to take economics? Doesn't anyone who gets a degree from any college take economics? So does that mean that EVERYONE who takes economics is, in fact, a Keynesian? If a president, let's say, decides that a tax code of say 20-25% for corporations, 10% for individuals is better and would produce more jobs, more savings, etc., would they be construed as a socialist? And what if said president decides that the government is "in free market too much" and decides to "get out of the market and let it work itself out," does that also mean they're a socialist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Come on Kirt, laugh a little bit. You won't be so bored. I know you will laugh at this one. Still bored? He looks like he could fill in as "the most interesting man" commercials. LOL I'll bet bigfoot has a picture of him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Now wait a minute. Didn't you, as a teacher, have to take economics? Doesn't anyone who gets a degree from any college take economics? So does that mean that EVERYONE who takes economics is, in fact, a Keynesian? If a president, let's say, decides that a tax code of say 20-25% for corporations, 10% for individuals is better and would produce more jobs, more savings, etc., would they be construed as a socialist? And what if said president decides that the government is "in free market too much" and decides to "get out of the market and let it work itself out," does that also mean they're a socialist? If your name isn't Ron Paul or Gary "pothead" Johnson, you must be a socialist. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Now wait a minute. Didn't you, as a teacher, have to take economics? Doesn't anyone who gets a degree from any college take economics? So does that mean that EVERYONE who takes economics is, in fact, a Keynesian? If a president, let's say, decides that a tax code of say 20-25% for corporations, 10% for individuals is better and would produce more jobs, more savings, etc., would they be construed as a socialist? And what if said president decides that the government is "in free market too much" and decides to "get out of the market and let it work itself out," does that also mean they're a socialist? No, I never took an economics class in college....and it's not required for most degrees....I had enough sense to look up the different economic philosophies and decided which one worked best within the confines of the Constitution.....that would be laissez faire free market capitalism..... YOU obviously never took an economics course, either....:P That first presidend WOULD be a socialist, because he/she is interfering in the running of the free market...by definition, socialism....the second president would be nearly perfect economically..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 No, I never took an economics class in college....and it's not required for most degrees....I had enough sense to look up the different economic philosophies and decided which one worked best within the confines of the Constitution.....that would be laissez faire free market capitalism..... YOU obviously never took an economics course, either....:P That first presidend WOULD be a socialist, because he/she is interfering in the running of the free market...by definition, socialism....the second president would be nearly perfect economically..... Took economics in high school, didn't you????? By your definition, the founding fathers themselves were Kenysian socialists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Took economics in high school, didn't you????? By your definition, the founding fathers themselves were Kenysian socialists. Had enough sense to recognize the fallacies I was being taught....:P Since Keynes wasn't born until the 19th century, it would be impossible for our founding fathers to be keynesians, and since marx wasn't born until the 19th century, it would be impossible for the founding fathers to be socialists....the founding fathers would not recognize the current economic structure of this nation...they were farmers and free market capitalists.....:P:p:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SideTracker Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 A Pa. Court ruled that Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson has enough petition signatures to appear on the ballot in Pennsylvania, but Republicans are expected to appeal the decision by the end of the day Friday. Commonwealth Court judges sided with Johnson by a margin of 2-1 on Thursday, according to the Associated Press. They ruled that about 9,000 of the candidate’s petition signatures are valid despite the fact that voters’ home addresses from the petitions did not match the addresses listed in the voting file. Two people with knowledge of the petition challenge – which has been coordinated with the Pa. Republican Party – said an appeal was in the process of being filed Friday afternoon. Both said the move is typical in such disputes; state law gives litigants a presumptive right to appeal any Commonwealth Court decision. Johnson served as Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, and briefly sought the Republican nomination for President this year. A fiscal conservative, he supports the decriminalization of marijuana. He is scheduled to attend a rally at West Chester University in suburban Philadelphia on Monday, kicking off a national tour of college campuses. Pennsylvania’s ballot access rules for 3rd party and independent candidates are among the strictest in the nation. Johnson needed 20,601 signatures for his name to appear on the ballot (his campaign turned in 49,000). Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney needed only 2,000 each. ******************************************************* Why are the Royal Highn#### only required to have 2000 signatures? Never mind, its the two party dupe. Libertarian Gary Johnson Wins First Ballot Fight; GOP to Appeal *********************************************************** Johnson’s candidacy has worried some Republicans who fear that the fiscal conservative could siphon votes away from Romney. These RepubliCONS crack my happy ars up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheaptrick77 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 <center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sXkLs-Xesb4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SideTracker Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 This needs to be included in the thread. What a bunch of cry babies. If I did not know better, but I do, I might see the actions of the GOP as limiting the electorate's choices in elections bordering on communist tactics. I do not understand how anyone can be proud how our elections are conducted. A lawsuit backed by the Republican National Committee sought to get rid of Nevada's unique "none" voting choice. The GOP fears "none" could siphon votes from the Republican candidates in what are expected to be tight presidential and U.S. Senate races. In a polarized political climate and an electorate soured on politics, opponents believe "none" gives voters an out from making a choice, and that such voters would be more inclined to vote for a challenger — such as Mitt Romney — if "none" was eliminated. I encourage Nevada to keep "none" on the ballots. Choosing "none" is a hell of a lot better for those that have lost faith in the two party dupe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now