goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: star seed 7 on November 09, 2014, 09:38:01 AM
-
first in the ring is young earth believer and evolution denier Ben Carson. his policy ideas include the flat tax and making homosexuality illegal because it's like pedophilia and beastiality.
good luck ben carson!
-
If he can twitter his ass of, he has a shot.
-
I didn't know the name Ben Carson until I read this thread this morning. Just saw a "Ben Carson '16" number sticker four houses down.
-
first in the ring is young earth believer and evolution denier Ben Carson. his policy ideas include the flat tax and making homosexuality illegal because it's like pedophilia and beastiality.
good luck ben carson!
Lol, that's a stretch to make that leap. Marriage between a man and woman = homosexuality illegal?
-
James Harris, supports the ideology of starving the electorate through draconian rationing, sympathizes with and supports nazis and Castro, supports guerrilla warfare and other militant fascist group in Latin America.
-
Hillary's running. She's Bill Clinton's wife. She was First Lady for two terms because Bill was president. She then bought a home in upstate NY to be elected as Senator twice because she was the First Lady to Bill. She then lost to Barack Obama in 2008. She then served as SOS under Obama and presided over such foreign policy triumphs as the Russian "reset" and Benghazi. She's also a woman. And did I mention she's Bill Clinton's wife? So naturally, she's the dem front runner.
-
She announced? :surprised:
-
Am I the only one who is really looking forward to Hillary running just so I can read the KSUW pit posts?
It is going to be his opus
-
Do you guys think George Bush's son might run?
-
Do you guys think George Bush's son might run?
Hope so! :drool:
-
Clinton v. Bush would be patently unfair to this country.
-
Clinton v. Bush would be patently unfair to this country.
The theatre tho. My god
-
Clinton v. Bush would be patently unfair to this country.
McCain/Obama
Romney/Obama
Gore/Bush
Etc.
-
Oh man, you know I will be following this thread closely.
-
How many George FN Bushes are there?
-
How many George FN Bushes are there?
A LOT. I think the most recent one is hispanic? Just imagine the collective libtard head explosion when a black GB runs for office.
-
An estimated 37 percent of eligible voters in the United States participated in the 2014 midterm elections. That's the lowest turnout since World War II, when people didn't vote because they were off fighting in World War II.
-
Sounds like your vote counts for more now than it ever has in US history.
-
Sounds like your vote counts for more now than it ever has in US history.
i took steve dave's advice and cashed in on this great redemption rate :thumbs:
-
An estimated 37 percent of eligible voters in the United States participated in the 2014 midterm elections. That's the lowest turnout since World War II, when people didn't vote because they were off fighting in World War II.
Shocking, FDR and his leftist majority didn't let soldiers in action vote
-
An estimated 37 percent of eligible voters in the United States participated in the 2014 midterm elections. That's the lowest turnout since World War II, when people didn't vote because they were off fighting in World War II.
Shocking, FDR and his leftist majority didn't let soldiers in action vote
what a dumb thing to say.
-
James Harris, supports the ideology of starving the electorate through draconian rationing, sympathizes with and supports nazis and Castro, supports guerrilla warfare and other militant fascist group in Latin America.
Anyone ever vote for this guy. He's head of the labor socialist part or something.
-
James Harris, supports the ideology of starving the electorate through draconian rationing, sympathizes with and supports nazis and Castro, supports guerrilla warfare and other militant fascist group in Latin America.
Anyone ever vote for this guy. He's head of the labor socialist part or something.
Seems to average about 6k-8k votes per election.
-
If he can twitter his ass of, he has a shot.
his followers on twitter include:
Fran Fraschilla
Collin Klein
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.dallasobserver.com%2Funfairpark%2Fromney%2520lawn.jpg&hash=10b21728eec5a6130d972d769753a2059558ad16)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.dallasobserver.com%2Funfairpark%2Fromney%2520lawn.jpg&hash=10b21728eec5a6130d972d769753a2059558ad16)
That guy looks HAF
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.dallasobserver.com%2Funfairpark%2Fromney%2520lawn.jpg&hash=10b21728eec5a6130d972d769753a2059558ad16)
That guy looks HAF
I hope so, he deserves it. I met him in a 7-11 in Ramona, CA last spring as he was on his way to ride dirt bikes in the desert with the boys. They had one of those rental RVs, which struck me as hilarious. Seemed like a really nice guy though.
-
He's the only republican with a legit shot in '16.
-
first in the ring is young earth believer and evolution denier Ben Carson. his policy ideas include the flat tax and making homosexuality illegal because it's like pedophilia and beastiality.
good luck ben carson!
In a 1996 Megadiversities interview, he said: "The entire concept of for profits for the insurance companies makes absolutely no sense. 'I deny that you need care and I will make more money.' This is totally ridiculous. The first thing we need to do is get rid of for-profit insurance companies. We have a lack of policies and we need to make the government responsible for catastrophic health care." In 1992 Carson wrote "The most natural question is, who will pay for catastrophic health care? The answer: The government-run catastrophic health care fund. Such a fund would be supported by a mandatory contribution of 10 to 15 percent of the profits of each health insurance company, including managed care operations.
:love:
“Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition.”
:nono:
-
Well, that insurance quote is it for him.
-
The book about Ben Carson and his crazy brain surgeries was like, one of my favorite books.
-
Well, that insurance quote is it for him.
Pretty great quote tho :surprised:
-
Well, that insurance quote is it for him.
Pretty great quote tho :surprised:
What's great about him is that he has lots of batshit crazy quotes about Obamacare and making crazy inappropriate comparisons like other cons but he hates it for the same reason I hate it; he doesn't think that government is going far enough to make sure we are all properly covered. He thinks the government is responsible for ensuring everyone has catastrophic coverage.
-
So are you guys for Carson? I'd be down with that.
-
Hilary will get crushed (by presidential election standards)
-
George W. was on NPR yesterday talking about how he's trying to goad Jeb into running.
-
So are you guys for Carson? I'd be down with that.
I make it a practice not to vote for known bigots
-
George W. was on NPR yesterday talking about how he's trying to goad Jeb into running.
Jeb would be the undisputed front runner and favorite to get the GOP nomination if people weren't so gunshy about the last name.
-
So are you guys for Carson? I'd be down with that.
I make it a practice not to vote for known bigots
I like him
-
I have decided to run for President.
-
I have decided to run for President.
How old is the earth?
-
I have decided to run for President.
How old is the earth?
All I can say with certainty is that it is older than me.
-
What kind of foreign policy are we talking about here, Sprac?
-
What kind of foreign policy are we talking about here, Sprac?
Two words: Hulk handed. However, the threshold for involvement should be v high. Let's spend more energy addressing our domestic problems.
-
What kind of foreign policy are we talking about here, Sprac?
Two words: Hulk handed. However, the threshold for involvement should be v high. Let's spend more energy addressing our domestic problems.
Can the gays marry?
-
What kind of foreign policy are we talking about here, Sprac?
Two words: Hulk handed. However, the threshold for involvement should be v high. Let's spend more energy addressing our domestic problems.
Can the gays marry?
Yes. It's good for business. But, we'll give it a different name to assuage the bigots.
-
You can never assuage them
-
Sprac, are you coming for my guns?
-
What kind of foreign policy are we talking about here, Sprac?
Two words: Hulk handed. However, the threshold for involvement should be v high. Let's spend more energy addressing our domestic problems.
Can the gays marry?
Yes. It's good for business. But, we'll give it a different name to assuage the bigots.
Boom, you are now unelectable. Well, you had a good run, no shame in trying, etc.
-
Sprac, are you coming for my guns?
Yes. I'm coming to talk to you about them, play with them and maybe even you let me shoot some of them.
-
What kind of foreign policy are we talking about here, Sprac?
Two words: Hulk handed. However, the threshold for involvement should be v high. Let's spend more energy addressing our domestic problems.
Can the gays marry?
Yes. It's good for business. But, we'll give it a different name to assuage the bigots.
Boom, you are now unelectable. Well, you had a good run, no shame in trying, etc.
Nope, neo-con here, still listening Spracne ma man.
-
is your speaking voice more or less unpleasant than that of Greg Orman?
-
The phrase "sex'd gravitas" comes to mind.
-
Do you have sex with black dress socks on?
-
Meet Zoltan Istvan; writer, futurist, philosopher, and transhumanist. Running for president in 2016 on, what else, the "transhumanist ticket" Early candidate for Benja's vote. Beep boop.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bsifcf_CcAAhsjj.jpg:large)
-
Wrote a novel about a transhumanist that takes over the world! And now he wants to run for president! And his name is Zoltan!
-
What is a transhumanist, and is his name Zoltan or Zolstan?
-
sounds/looks kinda foreign-y iyam
-
What is a transhumanist, and is his name Zoltan or Zolstan?
Zoltan! Look at that jaw line!
-
As stated by Istvan, the Transhumanist party has three primary goals as its political agenda:
1) Attempt to do everything possible to make it so this country's amazing scientists and technologists have resources to overcome human death and aging within 15–20 years—a goal an increasing number of leading scientists think is reachable.
2) Create a cultural mindset in America that embracing and producing radical technology and science is in the best interest of our nation and species.
3) Create national and global safeguards and programs that protect people against abusive technology and other possible planetary perils we might face as we transition into the transhumanist era.
Goal 1 seems pretty stupid, but this guy does look like the best candidate to throw his hat in the ring so far. If the election were today, I'd vote for Zoltan, no doubt.
-
As stated by Istvan, the Transhumanist party has three primary goals as its political agenda:
1) Attempt to do everything possible to make it so this country's amazing scientists and technologists have resources to overcome human death and aging within 15–20 years—a goal an increasing number of leading scientists think is reachable.
2) Create a cultural mindset in America that embracing and producing radical technology and science is in the best interest of our nation and species.
3) Create national and global safeguards and programs that protect people against abusive technology and other possible planetary perils we might face as we transition into the transhumanist era.
Goal 1 seems pretty stupid, but this guy does look like the best candidate to throw his hat in the ring so far. If the election were today, I'd vote for Zoltan, no doubt.
Yeah I mean none of that stuff is going to get him elected, and the first one is very stupid, but he's a pretty interesting guy.
-
Even if it were possible to overcome death, the only way that is sustainable is if you stop birth, too. How somebody could ever make that a goal of his political party is beyond me. If you are going to have a stupid goal like that, at least bury it in a long list. Don't make it #1 out of 3.
-
Even if it were possible to overcome death, the only way that is sustainable is if you stop birth, too. How somebody could ever make that a goal of his political party is beyond me. If you are going to have a stupid goal like that, at least bury it in a long list. Don't make it #1 out of 3.
Zoltan must be pro-choice then?
-
Even if it were possible to overcome death, the only way that is sustainable is if you stop birth, too. How somebody could ever make that a goal of his political party is beyond me. If you are going to have a stupid goal like that, at least bury it in a long list. Don't make it #1 out of 3.
Zoltan must be pro-choice then?
Yeah, I think he would have to be.
-
As stated by Istvan, the Transhumanist party has three primary goals as its political agenda:
1) Attempt to do everything possible to make it so this country's amazing scientists and technologists have resources to overcome human death and aging within 15–20 years—a goal an increasing number of leading scientists think is reachable.
2) Create a cultural mindset in America that embracing and producing radical technology and science is in the best interest of our nation and species.
3) Create national and global safeguards and programs that protect people against abusive technology and other possible planetary perils we might face as we transition into the transhumanist era.
Goal 1 seems pretty stupid, but this guy does look like the best candidate to throw his hat in the ring so far. If the election were today, I'd vote for Zoltan, no doubt.
I am with you, just need to see who he scoops for running mate
-
I think #2 should be our goal at all times, regardless who is pres
-
What is a transhumanist
A transhumanist, from what I've gathered, are people who believe that humans are going to make a jump in evolution to some higher state due mostly to a merging between human consciousness and rapidly improving technology.
-
Even if it were possible to overcome death, the only way that is sustainable is if you stop birth, too. How somebody could ever make that a goal of his political party is beyond me. If you are going to have a stupid goal like that, at least bury it in a long list. Don't make it #1 out of 3.
Zoltan must be pro-choice then?
Yeah, I think he would have to be.
Right. Sounds like the Dems would be a good fit? Primary challenge to Hillary?
-
Even if it were possible to overcome death, the only way that is sustainable is if you stop birth, too. How somebody could ever make that a goal of his political party is beyond me. If you are going to have a stupid goal like that, at least bury it in a long list. Don't make it #1 out of 3.
Zoltan must be pro-choice then?
Yeah, I think he would have to be.
Right. Sounds like the Dems would be a good fit? Primary challenge to Hillary?
It baffles me that this is a partisan issue, really. I mean it has nothing at all to do with fiscal policy or even the government, yet you just don't see pro life dems or pro choice republicans very often.
-
Zoltan does not care about your petty human arguments between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.
-
Even if it were possible to overcome death, the only way that is sustainable is if you stop birth, too. How somebody could ever make that a goal of his political party is beyond me. If you are going to have a stupid goal like that, at least bury it in a long list. Don't make it #1 out of 3.
Zoltan must be pro-choice then?
Yeah, I think he would have to be.
Right. Sounds like the Dems would be a good fit? Primary challenge to Hillary?
It baffles me that this is a partisan issue, really. I mean it has nothing at all to do with fiscal policy or even the government, yet you just don't see pro life dems or pro choice republicans very often.
It really baffles you?
-
Zoltan does not care about your petty human arguments between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.
Zoltan? Is he that robot that has feet and arms that are robot lions? Or possibly robot tigers?
-
Zoltan does not care about your petty human arguments between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.
Zoltan? Is he that robot that has feet and arms that are robot lions? Or possibly robot tigers?
voltron?
-
Zoltan does not care about your petty human arguments between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.
Zoltan? Is he that robot that has feet and arms that are robot lions? Or possibly robot tigers?
voltron?
Oh, ya.
-
is this also the nominations master thread because if so felix rex is the only true choice
-
Darn. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-president_n_6464192.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-president_n_6464192.html) Landmine averted.
-
Darn. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-president_n_6464192.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-president_n_6464192.html) Landmine averted.
She's off her meds, once she's back on them her tune with change.
"The post office should replace our nation's banks"
-
Darn. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-president_n_6464192.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-president_n_6464192.html) Landmine averted.
She's off her meds, once she's back on them her tune with change.
"The post office should replace our nation's banks"
She seems pretty definitive. We need a great liberal hero to emerge to damage Hillary in the primary or, even better, win and completely self destruct in the general. Fauxahontas was that candidate.
-
Darn. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-president_n_6464192.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-president_n_6464192.html) Landmine averted.
She's off her meds, once she's back on them her tune with change.
"The post office should replace our nation's banks"
She seems pretty definitive. We need a great liberal hero to emerge to damage Hillary in the primary or, even better, win and completely self destruct in the general. Fauxahontas was that candidate.
She's a nut job, it benefits nobody to have her as a candidate.
-
Meet Zoltan Istvan; writer, futurist, philosopher, and transhumanist. Running for president in 2016 on, what else, the "transhumanist ticket" Early candidate for Benja's vote. Beep boop.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bsifcf_CcAAhsjj.jpg:large)
over/under on how long until this guy gets questioned for antichrist?
-
Ever see an old dog go beserk when a pesky fly keeps landing on his butt. A lot of snapping, barking, growling. Hillary is the dog and Warren the fly. Just note also a young pup keeps itself clean with a tongue bath. There is a lot of dung in Hilliary's past to try to clean up to keep the fles away. There will be more Demoncrats to haunt her. Plus gloryhound bill and Obama will draw attention from her.
-
Demoncrats
:love:
-
Guys, Mitt is even better looking than he was 3 years ago. He should cruise to a win.
-
Guys, Mitt is even better looking than he was 3 years ago. He should cruise to a win.
He'd be a great president, and it would be nice to have a really decent guy in the White House again, but I don't understand how he figures to net any more votes than he did the last time around. He won the independents, but the conservatards didn't show up. Anti-mormon bigotry?
-
Strategy: put up the loser who lost last time.
-
Guys, Mitt is even better looking than he was 3 years ago. He should cruise to a win.
He'd be a great president, and it would be nice to have a really decent guy in the White House again, but I don't understand how he figures to net any more votes than he did the last time around. He won the independents, but the conservatards didn't show up. Anti-mormon bigotry?
Americans just vote for the pretty face, and he is the prettiest.
-
Guys, Mitt is even better looking than he was 3 years ago. He should cruise to a win.
He'd be a great president, and it would be nice to have a really decent guy in the White House again, but I don't understand how he figures to net any more votes than he did the last time around. He won the independents, but the conservatards didn't show up. Anti-mormon bigotry?
Americans just vote for the pretty face, and he is the prettiest.
John Edwards, or you are you just referring to the general election? That actually would be a pretty interesting comparison. When is the last time the uglier candidate won?
Obama --- Romney? I would say Romney is objectively more attracive, but he did not dance with Ellen, so push?
Obama > McCain
Bush > "I fought in Vietnam but have a potato face" Kerry
Bush > Gore (even before added 40 pounds)
Clinton > Dole
Clinton > G H-dub Bush
Bush --- Dukakis? Bush was old, but Dukakis was a weird lookin' dude.
Reagan > Mondale
Reagan > Carter
Carter > Ford
Nixon < McGovern I wouldn't give either much of a leg up, but gotta go McGovern, right?
-
Romney is a 7
Obama is a 5
-
Romney is a 7
Obama is a 5
Now? Or all along?
#TheWesIsTheFuture
-
Howard Dean on being a sudden presidential frontrunner: "You get sucked into being adored by thousands of people." http://t.co/EEvFchP2Qt
:lol: Trust me Howard, I know :lol:
-
Ben Carson with an early lead in the crazy department:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots)
-
Ben Carson with an early lead in the crazy department:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots)
Have not read the link, but I'd say that based on Kat Kid posting a link about "crazy" Ben Carson, there's a 90% chance whatever he said was either true or misrepresented.
-
Ben Carson with an early lead in the crazy department:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots)
Have not read the link, but I'd say that based on Kat Kid posting a link about "crazy" Ben Carson, there's a 90% chance whatever he said was either true or misrepresented.
"They [ISIS] got the wrong philosophy, but they're willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness," Carson reportedly said to applause.
"We have to change that," he added.
-
Ben Carson with an early lead in the crazy department:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots)
Have not read the link, but I'd say that based on Kat Kid posting a link about "crazy" Ben Carson, there's a 90% chance whatever he said was either true or misrepresented.
"They [ISIS] got the wrong philosophy, but they're willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness," Carson reportedly said to applause.
"We have to change that," he added.
Elizabeth Warren wants to turn the post office into a payday lender and B.O. is talking biblically about "rising seas" and this is what you think is the most crazy?
-
Ben Carson with an early lead in the crazy department:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots)
Have not read the link, but I'd say that based on Kat Kid posting a link about "crazy" Ben Carson, there's a 90% chance whatever he said was either true or misrepresented.
"They [ISIS] got the wrong philosophy, but they're willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness," Carson reportedly said to applause.
"We have to change that," he added.
Elizabeth Warren wants to turn the post office into a payday lender and B.O. is talking biblically about "rising seas" and this is what you think is the most crazy?
well for starters, neither of those people is running for president in 2016.
-
Mitt needs to throw his pretty face in the ring
-
Ben Carson with an early lead in the crazy department:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots)
Have not read the link, but I'd say that based on Kat Kid posting a link about "crazy" Ben Carson, there's a 90% chance whatever he said was either true or misrepresented.
"They [ISIS] got the wrong philosophy, but they're willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness," Carson reportedly said to applause.
"We have to change that," he added.
He didn't say you should be willing to die for your beliefs, but we are giving up our beliefs for the sake of political correctness, which is the other end of the spectrum. Political correctness is not a reason to dump your morals.
-
Ben Carson with an early lead in the crazy department:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots)
Have not read the link, but I'd say that based on Kat Kid posting a link about "crazy" Ben Carson, there's a 90% chance whatever he said was either true or misrepresented.
"They [ISIS] got the wrong philosophy, but they're willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness," Carson reportedly said to applause.
"We have to change that," he added.
He didn't say you should be willing to die for your beliefs, but we are giving up our beliefs for the sake of political correctness, which is the other end of the spectrum. Political correctness is not a reason to dump your morals.
What morals or beliefs are we giving up?
-
I don't know that any Dem is going to seriously challenge Hillary. Sad day for democracy when a party can't muster some internal debate. Granted things change quickly, but ol' Jeb seems to be building a juggernaut too.
-
Pretty bad lack of reasonable electable options on both sides of this shitty two party system.
-
It's Richard Perry's race to lose.
-
Pretty bad lack of reasonable electable options on both sides of this shitty two party system.
Jeb Bush will not be the nominee. The GOP will have plenty of options.
-
Pretty bad lack of reasonable electable options on both sides of this shitty two party system.
Jeb Bush will not be the nominee. The GOP will have plenty of options.
I don't know of the options will be suitable though? You did watch the excerpts from the Iowa crap show right?
-
Pretty bad lack of reasonable electable options on both sides of this shitty two party system.
Jeb Bush will not be the nominee. The GOP will have plenty of options.
"...reasonable electable. ..."
-
I really don't know anything about Jeb other than that he is George's brother. I'd have to learn more about him to say he's not a reasonable candidate.
-
Pretty bad lack of reasonable electable options on both sides of this shitty two party system.
Jeb Bush will not be the nominee. The GOP will have plenty of options.
I don't know of the options will be suitable though? You did watch the excerpts from the Iowa crap show right?
"Excerpts"? :lol: Did you catch a highlight reel on MSNBC? Give me a break.
Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul will all be formidable candidates if they win the nomination, and there could be others. It's early yet.
-
Mitt's out. http://www.kansas.com/news/nation-world/national/article8617475.html (http://www.kansas.com/news/nation-world/national/article8617475.html) So looks like the establishment can now comfortably coalesce around Jeb. I think the big money donors are in for a rude awakening.
-
Is jeb not 'pub' porn? I though he was.
-
Is jeb not 'pub' porn? I though he was.
I don't know what that means. He is definitely the establishment favorite due to his endorsement of amnesty and cozy ties with Wall Street (hey look - just the same as the Dems!). He is not the prefered candidate of conservatives.
-
Is jeb not 'pub' porn? I though he was.
I don't know what that means. He is definitely the establishment favorite due to his endorsement of amnesty and cozy ties with Wall Street (hey look - just the same as the Dems!). He is not the prefered candidate of conservatives.
I might vote for him if he really is pro-amnesty. It makes a lot of sense that a politician from a state with a lot of illegal immigration would want to hold onto that benefit, so I guess it really wouldn't be that surprising.
-
I really don't know anything about Jeb other than that he is George's brother. I'd have to learn more about him to say he's not a reasonable candidate.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1184.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz339%2Fstevegoiterman%2FGOV-JEB-BUSH-2.jpg&hash=e13a20efe0a32f1aa154b4fd5ac615f570942940)
tasty
-
could go here or the vaxers thread
"I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,"
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/02/02/rand_paul_supports_voluntary_vaccination.html
-
My god, pubs. Get your crap together. Hilary just clowning without effort thanks to Paul saying stupid crap about vaccinations to cater to the four or five crazy ppl that actually want to discuss it. If this is how it is going to play out, can we all just agree to concede the election a couple yr's early and save us all money and frustration?
-
could go here or the vaxers thread
"I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,"
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/02/02/rand_paul_supports_voluntary_vaccination.html
The state doesn't own your children, parents own their children, and it is an issue of freedom.
:lol:
-
Yes, I love the libtard outrage over Paul saying that parents "own" their children in the context of arguing that the government doesn't. Some lady on CNN actually called this a "fringe right-wing talking point." I would guess that if a poll was taken asking whether the government or parents have the right to make decisions for their children, about 98% of respondents would side with the parents. What a "fringe" thing to say.
Just a small taste of the libtard media hysteria we'll be treated to in the next two years.
-
Who is saying that the government owns children? Parents are Guardians, not owners
-
libtard outrage
-
libtard media hysteria
-
Who is saying that the government owns children? Parents are Guardians, not owners
Thanks for clearing that up, captain obvious. Paul wouldn't disagree with you. If you look at the cotnext of his answer, he was simply saying that American citizens have the right to make decisions for their kids as parents - not the government. "The government doesn't own our kids..." Now some of those decisions may be downright stupid (I happen to think the anti-vaccine crowd is pretty dumb), but they still have that right in America.
-
Paul: "I think vaccines are one of the greatest medical breakthroughs that we’ve had. I’m a big fan, but, you know, for most of our history, they have been voluntary. ... I think they're a good thing but I think the parent should have some input. The state doesn’t own your children; parents own the children and it is an issue of freedom.”
Libtards: WHAT A RADICAL!!! HE SAID PARENTS "OWN" THEIR KIDS!!!! :runaway:
-
I think most people were laughing at Paul for saying vaccines cause mental disorders - that's why I shared the story I shared. don't watch CNN though, so I could be wrong.
-
I think most people were laughing at Paul for saying vaccines cause mental disorders - that's why I shared the story I shared. don't watch CNN though, so I could be wrong.
Here is just an example of the liberal slant. The issue of whether parents should be forced to immunize their kids is at least debateable, but The Hill's headline is... Rand Paul: Parents 'own' children, not the state (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231501-rand-paul-the-state-doesnt-own-your-children)
For conservative candidates, every interview is a potential minefield. The vast majority of the journalists are of the liberal persuasion. Worse, many of them have a not so thinly-veiled partisan bent, ready to pounce on any word they can take out of context.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton tells supportes "Don’t let anybody tell you, that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs" and you see it on FoxNews and the conservative blogs. The MSM, and other cable news outlets yawn. She "misspoke" - nothing to see here, move along. :whistle1:
-
I think most people were laughing at Paul for saying vaccines cause mental disorders - that's why I shared the story I shared. don't watch CNN though, so I could be wrong.
Here is just an example of the liberal slant. The issue of whether parents should be forced to immunize their kids is at least debateable, but The Hill's headline is... Rand Paul: Parents 'own' children, not the state (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231501-rand-paul-the-state-doesnt-own-your-children)
For conservative candidates, every interview is a potential minefield. The vast majority of the journalists are of the liberal persuasion. Worse, many of them have a not so thinly-veiled partisan bent, ready to pounce on any word they can take out of context.
well, a quick google news search is all about the vaccination quote and really nothing about the "ownership". And Paul doubled down on his vaccinations quote. And we're in the middle of a measles outbreak. No one cares about the ownership quote because it's fairly obvious he misspoke, or at least everyone knew what he meant.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnag.gy%2FGzWhM.jpg&hash=4de70597073dcf16808bef97517218d2232f72c1)
-
I think most people were laughing at Paul for saying vaccines cause mental disorders - that's why I shared the story I shared. don't watch CNN though, so I could be wrong.
Here is just an example of the liberal slant. The issue of whether parents should be forced to immunize their kids is at least debateable, but The Hill's headline is... Rand Paul: Parents 'own' children, not the state (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231501-rand-paul-the-state-doesnt-own-your-children)
For conservative candidates, every interview is a potential minefield. The vast majority of the journalists are of the liberal persuasion. Worse, many of them have a not so thinly-veiled partisan bent, ready to pounce on any word they can take out of context.
well, a quick google news search is all about the vaccination quote and really nothing about the "ownership". And Paul doubled down on his vaccinations quote. And we're in the middle of a measles outbreak. No one cares about the ownership quote because it's fairly obvious he misspoke, or at least everyone knew what he meant.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnag.gy%2FGzWhM.jpg&hash=4de70597073dcf16808bef97517218d2232f72c1)
The measles is being brought here by un-immunized illegal immigrants. Under a legal immigration system, we can require non-citizens to be vaccinated and screened prior to entering the country. It seems a bit absurd to be talking about legally requiring US citizens to immunize their children because we refuse to stop illegal immigration. But I guess that's the backwards country we live in.
-
I think most people were laughing at Paul for saying vaccines cause mental disorders - that's why I shared the story I shared. don't watch CNN though, so I could be wrong.
Here is just an example of the liberal slant. The issue of whether parents should be forced to immunize their kids is at least debateable, but The Hill's headline is... Rand Paul: Parents 'own' children, not the state (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231501-rand-paul-the-state-doesnt-own-your-children)
For conservative candidates, every interview is a potential minefield. The vast majority of the journalists are of the liberal persuasion. Worse, many of them have a not so thinly-veiled partisan bent, ready to pounce on any word they can take out of context.
well, a quick google news search is all about the vaccination quote and really nothing about the "ownership". And Paul doubled down on his vaccinations quote. And we're in the middle of a measles outbreak. No one cares about the ownership quote because it's fairly obvious he misspoke, or at least everyone knew what he meant.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnag.gy%2FGzWhM.jpg&hash=4de70597073dcf16808bef97517218d2232f72c1)
The measles is being brought here by un-immunized illegal immigrants.
Is it?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/01/20/five-things-to-know-about-the-disneyland-measles-outbreak/
-
I don't know crap about rand paul personally. Hadn't heard or read anything about this before. I found the line discussing ownership of children to be funny when he followed it directly with it's an issue of freedom. All unintentional, but chortle-inducing nonetheless. I did not know it would be a freakout point for k-s-u or that rusty would get a collaterally chapped ass as well. #hadmeachorlte #everyonecalmdown
-
illegal immigrants are responsible for our measles outbreak, omfg :lol:
-
I liked that as well, mr bread
-
We quarantined the diseased at Ellis island, fwiw.
-
I think most people were laughing at Paul for saying vaccines cause mental disorders - that's why I shared the story I shared. don't watch CNN though, so I could be wrong.
Here is just an example of the liberal slant. The issue of whether parents should be forced to immunize their kids is at least debateable, but The Hill's headline is... Rand Paul: Parents 'own' children, not the state (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231501-rand-paul-the-state-doesnt-own-your-children)
For conservative candidates, every interview is a potential minefield. The vast majority of the journalists are of the liberal persuasion. Worse, many of them have a not so thinly-veiled partisan bent, ready to pounce on any word they can take out of context.
well, a quick google news search is all about the vaccination quote and really nothing about the "ownership". And Paul doubled down on his vaccinations quote. And we're in the middle of a measles outbreak. No one cares about the ownership quote because it's fairly obvious he misspoke, or at least everyone knew what he meant.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnag.gy%2FGzWhM.jpg&hash=4de70597073dcf16808bef97517218d2232f72c1)
Is the screen shot supposed to highlight media bias? eff, it even has Koch bros stuff sprinkled in
-
illegal immigrants are responsible for our measles outbreak, omfg :lol:
very telling that ksuw wants to believe that.
-
illegal immigrants are responsible for our measles outbreak, omfg :lol:
very telling that ksuw wants to believe that.
Just as telling that you blithely want to ignore the documented cases of measles at border detention centers.
-
World Bank statistics indicate that some of the countries that the kids are traveling from actually have higher vaccination rates than the United States. The U.S. has a 92 percent vaccination rate for measles. Mexico vaccinates 99 percent of its children; Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras all have a 93 percent vaccination rate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/vectors-or-victims-docs-slam-rumors-migrants-carry-disease-n152216
-
it's those damn 1%ers i bet.
-
KSUW, are the illegals paying for disneyland admission with government handout food stamps?
-
Obama Fast-Passes
-
Obama Fast-Passes
:D
-
Obama Fast-Passes
A little rock of trivia crack: Obama is a fellow ENTP.
-
World Bank statistics indicate that some of the countries that the kids are traveling from actually have higher vaccination rates than the United States. The U.S. has a 92 percent vaccination rate for measles. Mexico vaccinates 99 percent of its children; Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras all have a 93 percent vaccination rate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/vectors-or-victims-docs-slam-rumors-migrants-carry-disease-n152216
There's a zero percent chance that stat is true and anyone who believes it is a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
World Bank statistics indicate that some of the countries that the kids are traveling from actually have higher vaccination rates than the United States. The U.S. has a 92 percent vaccination rate for measles. Mexico vaccinates 99 percent of its children; Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras all have a 93 percent vaccination rate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/vectors-or-victims-docs-slam-rumors-migrants-carry-disease-n152216
There's a zero percent chance that stat is true and anyone who believes it is a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
:excited:
-
World Bank statistics indicate that some of the countries that the kids are traveling from actually have higher vaccination rates than the United States. The U.S. has a 92 percent vaccination rate for measles. Mexico vaccinates 99 percent of its children; Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras all have a 93 percent vaccination rate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/vectors-or-victims-docs-slam-rumors-migrants-carry-disease-n152216
There's a zero percent chance that stat is true and anyone who believes it is a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
:excited:
I mean, if you think mexico or Guatemala has even a firm idea as to the physical number of people residing in their own countries, let alone what percentage are vaccinated, you just cannot be helped because you are so rough ridin' naive I just poked you in the nose for the third time today after asking what that spot is on your shirt is.
People still get malaria, typhoid and yellow fever in Mexico. TB is a huge problem in these ridiculous refugee camps we're setting up.
-
Vaccinations should absolutely be available to illegals, free of charge.
-
Nobody enters the country until FSD confirms they are up to date on their malaria vaccination.
-
If those damn illegals would have just received their Ebola vaccination we wouldn't have had that scare either.
-
Looks like we're at 3 retards and counting.
-
Looks like we're at 3 retards and counting.
I'm surprised it's that low for Pit BBSn. Whatever happened to Beems? :cry:
-
http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/burden/vpd/surveillance_type/active/measlesreportedcasesbycountry.pdf
Mexico had 4512 suspected cases of measles in 2014.
-
http://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/burden/vpd/surveillance_type/active/measlesreportedcasesbycountry.pdf
Mexico had 4512 suspected cases of measles in 2014.
2 confirmed?
Coincidentally, the vaccination rates cited came from the same source. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.IMM.MEAS
-
Looks like mexico is using the wrong measles vaccine. 8 times the cases with 1/3 the people, yet they vaccinate at much higher rate. hmmmmm, why would mexico lie to the world bank????
Better question, why would somebody be so stupid as to believe that NBC report?
-
Looks like mexico is using the wrong measles vaccine. 8 times the cases with 1/3 the people, yet they vaccinate at much higher rate. hmmmmm, why would mexico lie to the world bank????
Better question, why would somebody be so stupid as to believe that NBC report?
The data all came from the world health organization. (both the number of suspected cases and vaccination rates)
-
Looks like mexico is using the wrong measles vaccine. 8 times the cases with 1/3 the people, yet they vaccinate at much higher rate. hmmmmm, why would mexico lie to the world bank????
Better question, why would somebody be so stupid as to believe that NBC report?
The data all came from the world health organization. (both the number of suspected cases and vaccination rates)
Aren't these the same international organizations pushing the debunked story that the U.S. has a higher infant mortality than other devloped nations? I think they even said we had a higher rate than Cuba. It all comes down to how reliably infant mortality is reported, and what a country defines as a "live birth." I would similarly treat such reports on vaccinations in developing nations with a lot of skepticism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas)
-
Looks like mexico is using the wrong measles vaccine. 8 times the cases with 1/3 the people, yet they vaccinate at much higher rate. hmmmmm, why would mexico lie to the world bank????
Better question, why would somebody be so stupid as to believe that NBC report?
The data all came from the world health organization. (both the number of suspected cases and vaccination rates)
Aren't these the same international organizations pushing the debunked story that the U.S. has a higher infant mortality than other devloped nations? I think they even said we had a higher rate than Cuba. It all comes down to how reliably infant mortality is reported, and what a country defines as a "live birth." I would similarly treat such reports on vaccinations in developing nations with a lot of skepticism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas)
Ok
-
Went back into the NBC propaganda piece michigancat (aka I'll believe anything I'm supposed to believe to push my bullshit pov cat), and clicked on the link cited in support.
2013 Measles vaccination rates (per wto unicef):
Mexico - 89%
Guatemala - 85%
So even if you are dumb enough to believe mexico self reports honestly or could even do so accurately, it's still a bullshit stat that only a fool would afford any credence.
-
Went back into the NBC propaganda piece michigancat (aka I'll believe anything I'm supposed to believe to push my bullshit pov cat), and clicked on the link cited in support.
2013 Measles vaccination rates (per wto unicef):
Mexico - 89%
Guatemala - 85%
So even if you are dumb enough to believe mexico self reports honestly or could even do so accurately, it's still a bullshit stat that only a fool would afford any credence.
Went back into the NBC propaganda piece michigancat (aka I'll believe anything I'm supposed to believe to push my bullshit pov cat), and clicked on the link cited in support.
2013 Measles vaccination rates (per wto unicef):
Mexico - 89%
Guatemala - 85%
So even if you are dumb enough to believe mexico self reports honestly or could even do so accurately, it's still a bullshit stat that only a fool would afford any credence.
what data should we cite when discussing where the primary cause of the measles outbreak?
(also, it's fairly obvious that the article is several months old and cited the 2012 data)
-
what data should we cite when discussing where the primary cause of the measles outbreak?
(also, it's fairly obvious that the article is several months old and cited the 2012 data)
LOL. Why are still defending that story? Do you really think the vaccination rate in Mexico just dropped 14% in one year?
C'mon man
-
I think most people were laughing at Paul for saying vaccines cause mental disorders - that's why I shared the story I shared. don't watch CNN though, so I could be wrong.
Here is just an example of the liberal slant. The issue of whether parents should be forced to immunize their kids is at least debateable, but The Hill's headline is... Rand Paul: Parents 'own' children, not the state (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231501-rand-paul-the-state-doesnt-own-your-children)
For conservative candidates, every interview is a potential minefield. The vast majority of the journalists are of the liberal persuasion. Worse, many of them have a not so thinly-veiled partisan bent, ready to pounce on any word they can take out of context.
well, a quick google news search is all about the vaccination quote and really nothing about the "ownership". And Paul doubled down on his vaccinations quote. And we're in the middle of a measles outbreak. No one cares about the ownership quote because it's fairly obvious he misspoke, or at least everyone knew what he meant.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnag.gy%2FGzWhM.jpg&hash=4de70597073dcf16808bef97517218d2232f72c1)
Is the screen shot supposed to highlight media bias? eff, it even has Koch bros stuff sprinkled in
I agree. Those bastards at NewsMax are real fuckers to conservatives, always have been libtard mediots
-
well, looks like that scott walker guy decided he doesn't want to run for president ever
http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/scott-walker-just-got-asked-if-he-believes-in-evolution-he-punted-20150211
-
well, looks like that scott walker guy decided he doesn't want to run for president ever
http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/scott-walker-just-got-asked-if-he-believes-in-evolution-he-punted-20150211
Libtards have the most idiotic litmus tests. For conservatives it's "do you support abortion" a matter of life and death. For libtards it's "so evolution - yes or no?" and "what's your stance on birth control?"
Seems like Walker's answer was perfectly appropriate. Why does it matter?
-
Because if you don't believe basic science like evolution, you're too dumb to run a country.
-
whether someone believes in a thing considered fact by pretty much every intelligent person on the planet with no scientific evidence to the contrary isn't something I want my president punting on. but, I'm going to assume he did that to coddle his low/medium base and isn't actually a dumbass.
-
Partying with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers - no biggie, ayers had a lot of good ideas
Soundbite indicating politician believes in god and evolution - to dumb to be president
Not surprised to see the usual libtards jumping in on this one
-
I don't think anyone cares whether he believes in God or not.
-
I don't think anyone cares whether he believes in God or not.
that's an acceptable spot to drop the "why does it matter" imo
-
I don't think anyone cares whether he believes in God or not.
Some people do, see Facebook post thread
-
If the government didn't invest massive amounts of money on scientific research, then I would probably agree that being able to speak intelligently on an elementary school science topic is irrelevant.
-
These flailing neocon responses :lol:
-
These flailing neocon responses :lol:
Neocons are democrats who believe in god, not guys who get elected governor 8 times in 3 years in the state with the most butthurt leftists per capita.
-
:lol:
-
Seriously, how many times has that guy had to be elected governor?
-
Quite a few times
-
Because if you don't believe basic science like evolution, you're too dumb to run a country.
You don't really think Scott Walker is stupid. He's smart enough to understand that doesn't need to opine on topics that are completely irrelevant to the presidency that will only needlessly piss off one group or another.
-
At some point he will have to say if he believes in dinosaurs
-
At some point he will have to say if he believes in dinosaurs
That's ok. The "no dinosaur" crowd is pretty small and usually doesn't vote.
-
At some point he will have to say if he believes in dinosaurs
That's ok. The "no dinosaur" crowd is pretty small and usually doesn't vote.
Good
-
There's a surprisingly large crowd that believes man walked with the dinosaurs about 6000 years ago, though.
-
There's a surprisingly large crowd that believes man walked with the dinosaurs about 6000 years ago, though.
Doubt it's that large
-
Because if you don't believe basic science like evolution, you're too dumb to run a country.
You don't really think Scott Walker is stupid. He's smart enough to understand that doesn't need to opine on topics that are completely irrelevant to the presidency that will only needlessly piss off one group or another.
It isn't irrelevant.
-
There's a surprisingly large crowd that believes man walked with the dinosaurs about 6000 years ago, though.
Doubt it's that large
Everything is relative, I guess. It's about 15% of the population.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/12/creationism_poll_how_many_americans_believe_the_bible_is_literal_inerrant.html
-
Nice
-
Because if you don't believe basic science like evolution, you're too dumb to run a country.
smart enough to understand that doesn't need to opine on topics that are completely irrelevant to the presidency that will only needlessly piss off one group or another.
If any legit candidate would actually reply to bullshit questions with that, they would win basically everyone's vote.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
-
There's a surprisingly large crowd that believes man walked with the dinosaurs about 6000 years ago, though.
Leave the democrat's constituency alone
-
Ben Carson with an early lead in the crazy department:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots)
Have not read the link, but I'd say that based on Kat Kid posting a link about "crazy" Ben Carson, there's a 90% chance whatever he said was either true or misrepresented.
"They [ISIS] got the wrong philosophy, but they're willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness," Carson reportedly said to applause.
"We have to change that," he added.
Ben Carson has proof!
http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/7/71/413418/ben-carson-gay-prison-sex
-
Just found out Ben Carson is black. Didn't realize so many people on this board were deep seated racists.
-
Ben Carson with an early lead in the crazy department:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-islamic-state-american-patriots)
Have not read the link, but I'd say that based on Kat Kid posting a link about "crazy" Ben Carson, there's a 90% chance whatever he said was either true or misrepresented.
"They [ISIS] got the wrong philosophy, but they're willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness," Carson reportedly said to applause.
"We have to change that," he added.
Ben Carson has proof!
http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/7/71/413418/ben-carson-gay-prison-sex
So... he's in agreement with about 95% of fellow black people that don't appreciate the comparison of the gay marriage movement to the real equal rights movement? Shocking. The whole prison sex thing was a bit weird, though. He's going to declare for president to raise his political profile, but I'd prefer to see him run for the open Senate seat in Maryland - which he could very well win.
-
Several news sites say that TX. Sen. Cruz is going to announce maybe tomorrow. This President had no executive experience, no qualification, and no long record of service to scrutinize - just like Cruz. He is like some ol' bull gorilla that pounds his chest and throws dirt in the air to show off to the other gorrilas. Can anyone tell me why this person should even be considerd.
-
Wasn't he born in Canada or something?
-
kick his ass, renocat
-
Ted Cruz announced he is running for president today.
-
Ted Cruz announced he is running for president today.
it's gonna be fun
-
He's not even American
-
About time we got a mexican as a president
-
just another ivy league east coast elitist
-
Cruz wants to abolish the IRS! Hot damn ignorant idea from a good patriot American. Let's abolish the federal government too, Tea partiers now are having a big politorgasim. Reforming the tax code is a great idea, making the IRS more fair and effecient okay, but dang someone has to collect revenue to keep the fed going. Pretty sound bites from a glib pretty boy gloryhound does not mean good presidential material. Maybe the good old days of cigar chomping and beer gushling party bosses picking the canidate should be brought back.
-
I kind of think renocat is a good poster. I am saying this on my own, without waiting for the collective agreement from gE.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
ted is basically an anarchist
-
I kind of think renocat is a good poster. I am saying this on my own, without waiting for the collective agreement from gE.
Gonna win 'em all!
He is already king of titles so duh
-
A flat 10% tax on everybody would be glorious.
-
There's a surprisingly large crowd that believes man walked with the dinosaurs about 6000 years ago, though.
Doubt it's that large
You don't know Texas...
-
Cruz wants to abolish the IRS! Hot damn ignorant idea from a good patriot American. Let's abolish the federal government too, Tea partiers now are having a big politorgasim. Reforming the tax code is a great idea, making the IRS more fair and effecient okay, but dang someone has to collect revenue to keep the fed going. Pretty sound bites from a glib pretty boy gloryhound does not mean good presidential material. Maybe the good old days of cigar chomping and beer gushling party bosses picking the canidate should be brought back.
You can collect taxes a lot more efficiently without income tax or the IRS...
But this sort of talk demonstrates why Cruz is not a good candidate. It whips up the base, and he's right that we should ultimately be moving towards a dramatically simplified tax code and a resulting smaller, more efficient tax collection agency, but simply saying "we need to abolish the IRS" without a more nuanced explanation sounds extreme and will not appeal to the broader electorate.
-
Cruz wants to abolish the IRS! Hot damn ignorant idea from a good patriot American. Let's abolish the federal government too, Tea partiers now are having a big politorgasim. Reforming the tax code is a great idea, making the IRS more fair and effecient okay, but dang someone has to collect revenue to keep the fed going. Pretty sound bites from a glib pretty boy gloryhound does not mean good presidential material. Maybe the good old days of cigar chomping and beer gushling party bosses picking the canidate should be brought back.
You can collect taxes a lot more efficiently without income tax or the IRS...
But this sort of talk demonstrates why Cruz is not a good candidate. It whips up the base, and he's right that we should ultimately be moving towards a dramatically simplified tax code and a resulting smaller, more efficient tax collection agency, but simply saying "we need to abolish the IRS" without a more nuanced explanation sounds extreme and will not appeal to the broader electorate.
He's not right that we should ultimately be moving towards a dramatically simplified tax code and a resulting smaller, more efficient tax collection agency, because that's not what he said. He wants to abolish the IRS instead.
-
Cruz wants to abolish the IRS! Hot damn ignorant idea from a good patriot American. Let's abolish the federal government too, Tea partiers now are having a big politorgasim. Reforming the tax code is a great idea, making the IRS more fair and effecient okay, but dang someone has to collect revenue to keep the fed going. Pretty sound bites from a glib pretty boy gloryhound does not mean good presidential material. Maybe the good old days of cigar chomping and beer gushling party bosses picking the canidate should be brought back.
You can collect taxes a lot more efficiently without income tax or the IRS...
But this sort of talk demonstrates why Cruz is not a good candidate. It whips up the base, and he's right that we should ultimately be moving towards a dramatically simplified tax code and a resulting smaller, more efficient tax collection agency, but simply saying "we need to abolish the IRS" without a more nuanced explanation sounds extreme and will not appeal to the broader electorate.
He's not right that we should ultimately be moving towards a dramatically simplified tax code and a resulting smaller, more efficient tax collection agency, because that's not what he said. He wants to abolish the IRS instead.
No, he's using shorthand hyperbole of "abolish the IRS" to mean simplifying the tax code to an extent that only a much smaller tax enforcement agency would be required.
Despite the blunt rhetoric, [Cruz Spokewoman] Frazier said, Cruz accepts the need for enforcement.
“The senator has never contested that there would be a small department that would enforce the tax code,” she said, “but the IRS as we know it would be gone.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130609-ted-cruz-launches-effort-to-abolish-irs-but-tax-experts-call-him-confused.ece (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130609-ted-cruz-launches-effort-to-abolish-irs-but-tax-experts-call-him-confused.ece)
But as I said, this is why he's not a candidate who will have sufficient appeal to the general electorate. By engaging in this oversimplified hyperbole instead of providing greater explanation of the reforms he envisions, he allows himself to be painted as an extremist.
-
Nobody is painting Cruz as an extremist except for Cruz. Everyone else is just observing the painting.
-
Nobody is painting Cruz as an extremist except for Cruz. Everyone else is just observing the painting.
LOL
-
kind of want Cruz to win the nomination so we can see him either trip over himself to act centrist or piss off a looooooooot of people. it'd be super fun either way.
-
I think a lot of people are underestimating Cruz. He is going to wipe the floor with clowns like Huckabee, Perry, and Paul on a debate stage.
Bush, Rubio and Walker will have the machines together to do enough to not get annihilated, but they could each be embarrassed by Cruz. He knows how to debate and how to give a stump speech. He will be a thorn in the side for a while assuming he gets enough money to stay relevant.
-
Cruz wants to abolish the IRS! Hot damn ignorant idea from a good patriot American. Let's abolish the federal government too, Tea partiers now are having a big politorgasim. Reforming the tax code is a great idea, making the IRS more fair and effecient okay, but dang someone has to collect revenue to keep the fed going. Pretty sound bites from a glib pretty boy gloryhound does not mean good presidential material. Maybe the good old days of cigar chomping and beer gushling party bosses picking the canidate should be brought back.
You can collect taxes a lot more efficiently without income tax or the IRS...
But this sort of talk demonstrates why Cruz is not a good candidate. It whips up the base, and he's right that we should ultimately be moving towards a dramatically simplified tax code and a resulting smaller, more efficient tax collection agency, but simply saying "we need to abolish the IRS" without a more nuanced explanation sounds extreme and will not appeal to the broader electorate.
hes not just saying abolish the IRS. He is saying Abolish the IRS and put rifles in their hands and send them to mexico.
-
kind of want Cruz to win the nomination so we can see him either trip over himself to act centrist or piss off a looooooooot of people. it'd be super fun either way.
This is what happened to Obama, but the media let him get away with it until after the last election.
-
A flat 10% tax on everybody would be glorious.
In
-
A flat 10% tax on everybody would be glorious.
In
unless you're poor
-
I think a lot of people are underestimating Cruz. He is going to wipe the floor with clowns like Huckabee, Perry, and Paul on a debate stage.
Bush, Rubio and Walker will have the machines together to do enough to not get annihilated, but they could each be embarrassed by Cruz. He knows how to debate and how to give a stump speech. He will be a thorn in the side for a while assuming he gets enough money to stay relevant.
I agree that Cruz is very intelligent and a very good debater - perhaps the best in a crowded field. As for the other names you toss out, here's my take:
- I don't see Huckabee or Perry gaining enough traction to ever make the debate stage.
- Bush has the money to go as far as he wants, but it's hard to see him winning any of the early primaries. He has almost zero appeal outside the beltway.
- Paul, Rubio, and Walker will be formidable. Paul has the ability to cobble together the most unlikely, but perhaps broadest coalition of support. Or his candidacy could ultimately implode. I'm leaning towards the latter. It's going to be tough to unite libertarians and isolationists with the social conservatives and neocons (see seven - that's how you use the term correctly).
- Rubio is a polished candidate who will have no difficulty raising funds and he's good in a debate, but the immigration debacle remains a serious millstone.
- Walker has the best resume, but the jury's out on his stumping/debating skills.
-
A flat 10% tax on everybody would be glorious.
In
unless you're poor
Agreed. The poor should receive the greatest portion of social benefits while paying the lowest percentage of taxes. And then they should vote for whomever will keep things that way. That will work out great.
-
A flat 10% tax on everybody would be glorious.
In
unless you're poor
:dunno:
I know that it is obscene what I paid the fed govt last year. Like a year's worth of college at a really good school. Did I get that value back? I don't feel like I did.
Does it stop me from having what I want? Nope. Still earned that money, though, through hard work, time, etc.
-
A flat 10% tax on everybody would be glorious.
In
unless you're poor
I still think EVERYONE should pay into the federal government, even if you get a bunch of benefits back. If you made $15k, you pay $1500 in taxes and no refund. You will still get all of your food stamps, section 8, etc, but you will still have skin in the game and really look at where and how your taxes are spent.
-
what percentage of people in the US today pay higher than a ten percent effective federal tax rate.
-
what percentage of people in the US today pay higher than a ten percent effective federal tax rate.
This I think is only income tax and doesn't include FICA, but it looks like pretty much only the top 10% in income pay more than that.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
-
you can get pretty different numbers based on what you decide is income, etc. if i take my overall compensation + realized investment income, i think i paid somewhere between 4 and 5 % in federal income taxes for 2014.
i don't think of myself as poor.
-
what percentage of people in the US today pay higher than a ten percent effective federal tax rate.
This I think is only income tax and doesn't include FICA, but it looks like pretty much only the top 10% in income pay more than that.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
And the top 10% would include basically everyone who went to college and earned a useful degree? That's a lot of people.
-
what percentage of people in the US today pay higher than a ten percent effective federal tax rate.
This I think is only income tax and doesn't include FICA, but it looks like pretty much only the top 10% in income pay more than that.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
And the top 10% would include basically everyone who went to college and earned a useful degree? That's a lot of people.
I have an engineering degree and live in the bay area and I'm not in the top 10%
-
What is the top 10%? Asking for a friend who is on his phone.
-
What is the top 10%? Asking for a friend who is on his phone.
$125k AGI
-
Household, right?
-
Jesus, click the link yourself, I'm on my phone too
-
Someone is def in the top 10% of grumpy tonight.
-
Someone is def in the top 10% of grumpy tonight.
It's a grumpy night
-
More than 10% of the country pay a 10%+ effective FITR you rough ridin' troglodytes.
-
More than 10% of the country pay a 10%+ effective FITR you rough ridin' troglodytes.
Only FICA tho still?
-
Also, I'm running for president. My sole platform is to abolish fica so everyone who works doesn't have to keep paying for old people to go to the doctor every rough ridin' day and then to Walgreens to buy drugs. Instead, they get one free mickey mouse fishing pole each and a tiny shovel to dig up earthworms.
-
What party is that?
-
10% would be glorious.
-
what percentage of people in the US today pay higher than a ten percent effective federal tax rate.
This I think is only income tax and doesn't include FICA, but it looks like pretty much only the top 10% in income pay more than that.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
And the top 10% would include basically everyone who went to college and earned a useful degree? That's a lot of people.
I have an engineering degree and live in the bay area and I'm not in the top 10%
Damn. That seems like a very expensive place to live to not have a household income of at least $120k. Ts&Ps. Or are you single? I would think that a single person making around $75k (primarily wages) would also be paying an effective FIT rate of at least 10%, but can't find numbers on that.
-
A flat 10% tax on everybody would be glorious.
In
unless you're poor
:dunno:
I know that it is obscene what I paid the fed govt last year. Like a year's worth of college at a really good school. Did I get that value back? I don't feel like I did.
Does it stop me from having what I want? Nope. Still earned that money, though, through hard work, time, etc.
Wow I usually appreciate what you're saying, but you might as well request a name change to C-N-S-Wildcts! with that attitude. Did "I" get that value back? Dollar for dollar, maybe not because you can't quantify crap like not using the fire department and police when you're house doesn't burn down or you don't get raped and murdered. Also its good to see you didn't use the US military to defend your clan from marauding bands of ruffians.
Guess what living in civil society is expensive. Sorry that you get to reap all the benefits of living in the first world while having to pay for them. :(
-
what percentage of people in the US today pay higher than a ten percent effective federal tax rate.
This I think is only income tax and doesn't include FICA, but it looks like pretty much only the top 10% in income pay more than that.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
And the top 10% would include basically everyone who went to college and earned a useful degree? That's a lot of people.
I have an engineering degree and live in the bay area and I'm not in the top 10%
Damn. That seems like a very expensive place to live to not have a household income of at least $120k. Ts&Ps.
it's not that hard
-
A flat 10% tax on everybody would be glorious.
In
unless you're poor
:dunno:
I know that it is obscene what I paid the fed govt last year. Like a year's worth of college at a really good school. Did I get that value back? I don't feel like I did.
Does it stop me from having what I want? Nope. Still earned that money, though, through hard work, time, etc.
Wow I usually appreciate what you're saying, but you might as well request a name change to C-N-S-Wildcts! with that attitude. Did "I" get that value back? Dollar for dollar, maybe not because you can't quantify crap like not using the fire department and police when you're house doesn't burn down or you don't get raped and murdered. Also its good to see you didn't use the US military to defend your clan from marauding bands of ruffians.
Guess what living in civil society is expensive. Sorry that you get to reap all the benefits of living in the first world while having to pay for them. :(
Typical libtard strawman. CNS was not complaining about paying taxes - he was complaining about paying a much higher percentage of income taxes than other people, even though we all receive the same amount of benefit from all those services you list. (And I know what your next argument is going to be...) Meanwhile, the poor not only receive those same services - they receive much more in social welfare benefits, all while paying a significantly less, or in most cases negative, percentage of income tax.
-
what percentage of people in the US today pay higher than a ten percent effective federal tax rate.
This I think is only income tax and doesn't include FICA, but it looks like pretty much only the top 10% in income pay more than that.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
And the top 10% would include basically everyone who went to college and earned a useful degree? That's a lot of people.
I have an engineering degree and live in the bay area and I'm not in the top 10%
Damn. That seems like a very expensive place to live to not have a household income of at least $120k. Ts&Ps.
it's not that hard
If you're single and don't have kids, then yeah. But again, a single filer is going to pay at least a 10% effective tax rate on a much lower AGI than a joint-filing household.
-
what percentage of people in the US today pay higher than a ten percent effective federal tax rate.
This I think is only income tax and doesn't include FICA, but it looks like pretty much only the top 10% in income pay more than that.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
And the top 10% would include basically everyone who went to college and earned a useful degree? That's a lot of people.
I have an engineering degree and live in the bay area and I'm not in the top 10%
Damn. That seems like a very expensive place to live to not have a household income of at least $120k. Ts&Ps.
it's not that hard
If you're single and don't have kids, then yeah. But again, a single filer is going to pay at least a 10% effective tax rate on a much lower AGI than a joint-filing household.
I have two kids
-
A flat 10% tax on everybody would be glorious.
In
unless you're poor
:dunno:
I know that it is obscene what I paid the fed govt last year. Like a year's worth of college at a really good school. Did I get that value back? I don't feel like I did.
Does it stop me from having what I want? Nope. Still earned that money, though, through hard work, time, etc.
Wow I usually appreciate what you're saying, but you might as well request a name change to C-N-S-Wildcts! with that attitude. Did "I" get that value back? Dollar for dollar, maybe not because you can't quantify crap like not using the fire department and police when you're house doesn't burn down or you don't get raped and murdered. Also its good to see you didn't use the US military to defend your clan from marauding bands of ruffians.
Guess what living in civil society is expensive. Sorry that you get to reap all the benefits of living in the first world while having to pay for them. :(
Typical libtard strawman. CNS was not complaining about paying taxes - he was complaining about paying a much higher percentage of income taxes than other people, even though we all receive the same amount of benefit from all those services you list. (And I know what your next argument is going to be...) Meanwhile, the poor not only receive those same services - they receive much more in social welfare benefits, all while paying a significantly less, or in most cases negative, percentage of income tax.
People that don't receive those services still benefit from the fact that people are on those services.
You could also argue that CNS benefits far more from discretionary spending than those who make less than he does.
-
A flat 10% tax on everybody would be glorious.
In
unless you're poor
:dunno:
I know that it is obscene what I paid the fed govt last year. Like a year's worth of college at a really good school. Did I get that value back? I don't feel like I did.
Does it stop me from having what I want? Nope. Still earned that money, though, through hard work, time, etc.
Wow I usually appreciate what you're saying, but you might as well request a name change to C-N-S-Wildcts! with that attitude. Did "I" get that value back? Dollar for dollar, maybe not because you can't quantify crap like not using the fire department and police when you're house doesn't burn down or you don't get raped and murdered. Also its good to see you didn't use the US military to defend your clan from marauding bands of ruffians.
Guess what living in civil society is expensive. Sorry that you get to reap all the benefits of living in the first world while having to pay for them. :(
Yeah, I get all that. I really do. However, I think there is an argument to be made against some of the cost of all that as well. For example, should police have large enough budgets that allow them to purchase military grade surplus equipt, and I certainly don't think that we need the defense budget we currently have, just to hit a couple of your notes.
I also don't feel like it is too much to ask for something in return for aid given to those in need. I have said it before, but a good example would be school attendance and performance above a certain threshold. I don't feel like I am a monster for any of this. :dunno:
-
A flat 10% tax on everybody would be glorious.
In
unless you're poor
:dunno:
I know that it is obscene what I paid the fed govt last year. Like a year's worth of college at a really good school. Did I get that value back? I don't feel like I did.
Does it stop me from having what I want? Nope. Still earned that money, though, through hard work, time, etc.
Wow I usually appreciate what you're saying, but you might as well request a name change to C-N-S-Wildcts! with that attitude. Did "I" get that value back? Dollar for dollar, maybe not because you can't quantify crap like not using the fire department and police when you're house doesn't burn down or you don't get raped and murdered. Also its good to see you didn't use the US military to defend your clan from marauding bands of ruffians.
Guess what living in civil society is expensive. Sorry that you get to reap all the benefits of living in the first world while having to pay for them. :(
Typical libtard strawman. CNS was not complaining about paying taxes - he was complaining about paying a much higher percentage of income taxes than other people, even though we all receive the same amount of benefit from all those services you list. (And I know what your next argument is going to be...) Meanwhile, the poor not only receive those same services - they receive much more in social welfare benefits, all while paying a significantly less, or in most cases negative, percentage of income tax.
People that don't receive those services still benefit from the fact that people are on those services.
You could also argue that CNS benefits far more from discretionary spending than those who make less than he does.
Maybe I do. Give me some examples.
-
Also, I'm running for president. My sole platform is to abolish fica so everyone who works doesn't have to keep paying for old people to go to the doctor every rough ridin' day and then to Walgreens to buy drugs. Instead, they get one free mickey mouse fishing pole each and a tiny shovel to dig up earthworms.
I would vote for this.
-
People that don't receive those services still benefit from the fact that people are on those services.
I agree that we all derive a benefit from providing a minimal safety net to the poor and, in particular, poor children. I disagree that we derive any additional benefit from the current bloated size and scope of those benefits. To the contrary, I believe there are a number of negative consequences such as lower productivity, social and familial fragmentation, and massive debt.
-
Maybe I do. Give me some examples.
Hard to say without knowing exactly how you live. Considering you live on 1+ acres, one likely example is that you benefit far more from federal highway dollars than your typical poor person. You also benefit more from our military, (by far our largest discretionary expense), securing oil out of the middle east, both in terms of direct travel and the cost of goods you buy.
I also don't know exactly what you do with construction, but there's a good chance federal dollars are trickling into your company either directly or indirectly. Perhaps you've built a store that accepts food stamps or an office for a company that works with the government, or maybe you've straight up worked on a federally funded project.
Note: not saying it adds up to more than what someone who pays less receives in social services, but you probably receive more benefits than you realize.
-
I think safety nets could be applied better and could provide an increase in benefit by society. I think ed spending should go through the roof and that we should stop jailing ppl for so much little bullshit drug stuff. Cut the budgets of prisons and law enforcement by stopping the war on drugs then make college much more affordable to many more ppl.
-
I think safety nets could be applied better and could provide an increase in benefit by society. I think ed spending should go through the roof and that we should stop jailing ppl for so much little bullshit drug stuff. Cut the budgets of prisons and law enforcement by stopping the war on drugs then make college much more affordable to many more ppl.
Did you know that the State of Kansas currently spends 63% of its entire budget on education? It spends another 27% on "human services" (mostly welfare-type programs). That's 90% of state funds being spent on just those two categories. The remainder goes to public safety (6.3%), government administration (3.2%), transportation (0.3%), and ag & natural resources (0.3%).
-
We are talking feds, bro.
-
I think safety nets could be applied better and could provide an increase in benefit by society. I think ed spending should go through the roof and that we should stop jailing ppl for so much little bullshit drug stuff. Cut the budgets of prisons and law enforcement by stopping the war on drugs then make college much more affordable to many more ppl.
Did you know that the State of Kansas currently spends 63% of its entire budget on education? It spends another 27% on "human services" (mostly welfare-type programs). That's 90% of state funds being spent on just those two categories. The remainder goes to public safety (6.3%), government administration (3.2%), transportation (0.3%), and ag & natural resources (0.3%).
Brownback would be a whole lot more popular among conservatives if he'd stop targeting the 63% line item and get to work on the 27%.
-
AGI
i didn't realize how disingenuous using AGI was when this discussion popped up a few months ago, but since i just did my taxes, and they're fresh in my mind, i do now. AGI excludes a ton of income. Mine was probably in the neighborhood of 55-60% of my actual total compensation + investment income.
-
AGI
i didn't realize how disingenuous using AGI was when this discussion popped up a few months ago, but since i just did my taxes, and they're fresh in my mind, i do now. AGI excludes a ton of income. Mine was probably in the neighborhood of 55-60% of my actual total compensation + investment income.
It's the data that's available, but I agree that true tax rate should simply be total tax divided by total income.
-
Turns out the percentage of filers paying at or below 10% effective tax rates was closer to 80% In 2010. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney)
-
It's the data that's available, but I agree that true tax rate should simply be total tax divided by total income.
that may be, but it's misleading when it's presented to an audience that doesn't realize how different agi and total income can be (which, i think is true of the general populace).
-
Turns out the percentage of filers paying at or below 10% effective tax rates was closer to 80% In 2010. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney)
Imagine the huge increase in revenue a 10% flat tax would bring.
-
Turns out the percentage of filers paying at or below 10% effective tax rates was closer to 80% In 2010. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney)
Imagine the huge increase in revenue a 10% flat tax would bring.
Wait you want the federal government to grow in size?
-
Turns out the percentage of filers paying at or below 10% effective tax rates was closer to 80% In 2010. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney)
Imagine the huge increase in revenue a 10% flat tax would bring.
Wait you want the federal government to grow in size?
No, but if we can't shrink it then I'd rather balance the budget on the backs of the freeloaders.
-
Turns out the percentage of filers paying at or below 10% effective tax rates was closer to 80% In 2010. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney)
Imagine the huge increase in revenue a 10% flat tax would bring.
Wait you want the federal government to grow in size?
Dumb question. We're $20 trillion dollars in debt.
-
Turns out the percentage of filers paying at or below 10% effective tax rates was closer to 80% In 2010. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney)
Imagine the huge increase in revenue a 10% flat tax would bring.
Wait you want the federal government to grow in size?
Dumb question. We're $20 trillion dollars in debt.
Yeah. Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Obama have created a whole lot of debt.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2Fdebt%2520per%2520capita%25202011-05.png&hash=7531dd49dd362a02b9919ab8f3dd4977c35b6baa)
-
Man, Reagan gave absolutely no fucks about debt #fiscaldiety
-
Turns out the percentage of filers paying at or below 10% effective tax rates was closer to 80% In 2010. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney)
Imagine the huge increase in revenue a 10% flat tax would bring.
Wait you want the federal government to grow in size?
Dumb question. We're $20 trillion dollars in debt.
Yeah. Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Obama have created a whole lot of debt.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2Fdebt%2520per%2520capita%25202011-05.png&hash=7531dd49dd362a02b9919ab8f3dd4977c35b6baa)
Why does your graph stop at 2010, and why is debt "per American"? If you don't want to look at total debt (which makes Obama look really bad), debt as a percentage of GDP would be a better metric.
-
The graph stops at 2010 because I pulled it from this article written in 2011. Plus, the graph I posted makes Obama look really bad. The line during is presidency is very steep.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/the-us-debt-owed-by-each-american-throughout-history/241366/
-
Turns out the percentage of filers paying at or below 10% effective tax rates was closer to 80% In 2010. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/least-90-percent-americans-have-lower-income-tax-rate-romney)
Imagine the huge increase in revenue a 10% flat tax would bring.
Wait you want the federal government to grow in size?
Dumb question. We're $20 trillion dollars in debt.
Its not a dumb question, flat tax supporters want a revenue nuetral solution.
-
I think we should probably just start taxing the first dollars people make at 1%. That way this talking point goes away. Everyone would get a tax increase, but it would be minimal, and the US government's tax revenues would get a minor bump.
-
Yeah 2-3 percent for the first 15k or so sounds fair
-
The graph stops at 2010 because I pulled it from this article written in 2011. Plus, the graph I posted makes Obama look really bad. The line during is presidency is very steep.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/the-us-debt-owed-by-each-american-throughout-history/241366/
It's even worse if you continue out to current.
-
I think we should probably just start taxing the first dollars people make at 1%. That way this talking point goes away. Everyone would get a tax increase, but it would be minimal, and the US government's tax revenues would get a minor bump.
Or we could just convert current tax credits to deductions.
-
I think we should probably just start taxing the first dollars people make at 1%. That way this talking point goes away. Everyone would get a tax increase, but it would be minimal, and the US government's tax revenues would get a minor bump.
Or we could just convert current tax credits to deductions.
That's fine, too. Everyone should have some skin in the game, though.
-
I think we should probably just start taxing the first dollars people make at 1%. That way this talking point goes away. Everyone would get a tax increase, but it would be minimal, and the US government's tax revenues would get a minor bump.
I'd be cool with a 1% VAT if it was dedicated solely to reducing the debt and self terminating. We'd probably pay down 20 trillion dollars in less than 3 decades. Unfortunately the obamatard and his succesors will have managed to deficit spend a new 20 trillion by then, likely by tax crediting stupid trash parasitic people out of their share of the VAT
-
Man, Reagan gave absolutely no fucks about debt #fiscaldiety
Not only that but his graph looks like stairs. Like he was etch a sketching it in prostyle
-
Is Cruz dumb? He doesn't come off as being intelligent
-
Is Cruz dumb? He doesn't come off as being intelligent
I don't think he's dumb at all, just very extreme views
-
I think we should probably just start taxing the first dollars people make at 1%. That way this talking point goes away. Everyone would get a tax increase, but it would be minimal, and the US government's tax revenues would get a minor bump.
I'd be cool with a 1% VAT if it was dedicated solely to reducing the debt and self terminating. We'd probably pay down 20 trillion dollars in less than 3 decades. Unfortunately the obamatard and his succesors will have managed to deficit spend a new 20 trillion by then, likely by tax crediting stupid trash parasitic people out of their share of the VAT
Right. Pass a balanced budget amendment and slash spending and I would support a tax increase devoted to paying down debt.
-
I think we should probably just start taxing the first dollars people make at 1%. That way this talking point goes away. Everyone would get a tax increase, but it would be minimal, and the US government's tax revenues would get a minor bump.
I'd be cool with a 1% VAT if it was dedicated solely to reducing the debt and self terminating. We'd probably pay down 20 trillion dollars in less than 3 decades. Unfortunately the obamatard and his succesors will have managed to deficit spend a new 20 trillion by then, likely by tax crediting stupid trash parasitic people out of their share of the VAT
Right. Pass a balanced budget amendment and slash spending and I would support a tax increase devoted to paying down debt.
I'll take a unicorn while you're at it.
-
I think we should probably just start taxing the first dollars people make at 1%. That way this talking point goes away. Everyone would get a tax increase, but it would be minimal, and the US government's tax revenues would get a minor bump.
I'd be cool with a 1% VAT if it was dedicated solely to reducing the debt and self terminating. We'd probably pay down 20 trillion dollars in less than 3 decades. Unfortunately the obamatard and his succesors will have managed to deficit spend a new 20 trillion by then, likely by tax crediting stupid trash parasitic people out of their share of the VAT
Right. Pass a balanced budget amendment and slash spending and I would support a tax increase devoted to paying down debt.
I'll take a unicorn while you're at it.
Me agreeing to a tax increase is pretty much unicorn. Can't we compromise?
-
Is Cruz dumb? He doesn't come off as being intelligent
I don't think he's dumb at all, just very extreme views
He just dumbs himself down to appeal to his base.
-
I heard clips of his announcement speech. Very hope and change-y.
Much more articulate and intelligent sounding when talking unscripted than bush or obama.
-
I heard clips of his announcement speech. Very hope and change-y.
Much more articulate and intelligent sounding when talking unscripted than bush or obama.
His announcement speech was scripted.
-
I heard clips of his announcement speech. Very hope and change-y.
Much more articulate and intelligent sounding when talking unscripted than bush or obama.
His announcement speech was scripted.
You mean he prepared his speech in advance instead of just announcing his candidcay off the cuff? :Wha: At least he didn't read it off a teleprompter. He's a very smart individual, and he's a true conservative. I think he lacks the polticial savvy to win nationwide office.
-
I heard clips of his announcement speech. Very hope and change-y.
Much more articulate and intelligent sounding when talking unscripted than bush or obama.
His announcement speech was scripted.
You mean he prepared his speech in advance instead of just announcing his candidcay off the cuff? :Wha: At least he didn't read it off a teleprompter. He's a very smart individual, and he's a true conservative. I think he lacks the polticial savvy to win nationwide office.
I wasn't criticizing him.
-
If there is one thing our country needs it's a guy that refuses to use a teleprompter. The true test of a candidate's conservatism.
All debates should be held blind folded too.
-
If there is one thing our country needs it's a guy that refuses to use a teleprompter. The true test of a candidate's conservatism.
All debates should be held blind folded too.
I think that probably goes too far. But I will say that being able to give an eloquent speech without a TelePrompTer is a much surer indicator of intelligence and conviction than an Ivy League education.
-
If there is one thing our country needs it's a guy that refuses to use a teleprompter. The true test of a candidate's conservatism.
All debates should be held blind folded too.
I think that probably goes too far. But I will say that being able to give an eloquent speech without a TelePrompTer is a much surer indicator of intelligence and conviction than an Ivy League education.
Cruz has an Ivy League education.
-
I heard clips of his announcement speech. Very hope and change-y.
Much more articulate and intelligent sounding when talking unscripted than bush or obama.
His announcement speech was scripted.
You mean he prepared his speech in advance instead of just announcing his candidcay off the cuff? :Wha: At least he didn't read it off a teleprompter. He's a very smart individual, and he's a true conservative. I think he lacks the polticial savvy to win nationwide office.
What makes you think he is very smart?
-
wait, was he really born in Canada?
-
If there is one thing our country needs it's a guy that refuses to use a teleprompter. The true test of a candidate's conservatism.
All debates should be held blind folded too.
I think that probably goes too far. But I will say that being able to give an eloquent speech without a TelePrompTer is a much surer indicator of intelligence and conviction than an Ivy League education.
:lol:
-
wait, was he really born in Canada?
Yes. He's also just signed up for obamacare and the ksuw types are livid :lol:
-
If there is one thing our country needs it's a guy that refuses to use a teleprompter. The true test of a candidate's conservatism.
All debates should be held blind folded too.
I think that probably goes too far. But I will say that being able to give an eloquent speech without a TelePrompTer is a much surer indicator of intelligence and conviction than an Ivy League education.
Well, you can say it goes too far, but I say, how do you know for sure? We have to make sure we do this one right and the Telepromter Test is the only real indication of a persons ability to be the most powerful person in the world.
-
wait, was he really born in Canada?
Yes. He's also just signed up for obamacare and the ksuw types are livid :lol:
What a ridiculous argment. He's been quite clear that he would repeal Obamacare, but it is the law that's currently in place. If he doesn't participate in the Obamacare exchange, he loses the benefit that the government chips in for his health insurance. That's not hypocritcal - it's making the best of a crap law. Were Obamacare repealed and the ridiculous coverage mandates and guaranteed issue removed, Cruz's family would have any number of cheaper options available.
-
Tell it to the neocon dumbasses, I don't really care what he does
-
I think removing the legislation limiting who can sell coverage where would be the best. Keep the marketplace, even. The real savings would be me being able to deal with more than just two companies in shopping for coverage. If that became 20 companies, prices would obvsly drop.
Also, there needs to be legislation/regulation focusing on what costs are covered, which service, and by who prior to receiving services. There have been multiple times where a doctor tells my fam that my insurance will cover certain components of their services(this is after they have supposedly made contact with my insurance co) then months after the service, I get a big ass bill noting portions weren't covered. This is the stupidest industry in the world when it comes to trying to actually get a cost prior to getting the service. That needs to be regulated because the market has done everything it can to make sure it isn't clear and transparent. This is a really good example of where regulation is needed in a market that doesn't sort itself out.
-
I think that for non-emergency services, you should sign a paper detailing how much you will owe and if the total ends up being different, the doctor/hospital just eats that cost.
-
I think that for non-emergency services, you should sign a paper detailing how much you will owe and if the total ends up being different, the doctor/hospital just eats that cost.
I agree. As for emergency services, there needs to be regulation stating that all insurances provide coverages to all emergency rooms. If you are unconscious, in an ambulance, and taken to an emergency room, your insurance needs to cover. There was a story in texas a month or so a go, where this actually happened. If the ambulance took the woman to a hospital a quarter mile away, her insurance would have covered. Instead, she has something like an $80k bill. The medical/insurance industry is a monster than needs to be managed.
-
cruz has interviewed really well and sounds smart and thoughtful, unlike his previous political character he has been crafting for so long. which persona is the real him? probably neither.
-
Tell it to the neocon dumbasses, I don't really care what he does
Good, but you might tell that to your libtard bros in the media. They're the only ones I can see that are trying to make this into a story. The Eagle just today ran a similar hit piece against Huelskamp for the same thing. The argument is beyond stupid.
-
I think removing the legislation limiting who can sell coverage where would be the best. Keep the marketplace, even. The real savings would be me being able to deal with more than just two companies in shopping for coverage. If that became 20 companies, prices would obvsly drop.
Also, there needs to be legislation/regulation focusing on what costs are covered, which service, and by who prior to receiving services. There have been multiple times where a doctor tells my fam that my insurance will cover certain components of their services(this is after they have supposedly made contact with my insurance co) then months after the service, I get a big ass bill noting portions weren't covered. This is the stupidest industry in the world when it comes to trying to actually get a cost prior to getting the service. That needs to be regulated because the market has done everything it can to make sure it isn't clear and transparent. This is a really good example of where regulation is needed in a market that doesn't sort itself out.
Agreed on both points. The ridiculous confusion is part of the problem of our overuse of insurance in the first place. The other big problem is that having "somebody else" pay for yur routine healthcare distorts the market. Obamacare makes all of these problems worse, not better.
Keep in mind, though, that simply stripping away mandates and allowing people to (gasp) buy the level of insurance coverage they actually want will only do a little to tame costs under the current framework. Obamacare's "guaranteed issue" (you can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions) is the major cost driver. You have to get rid of that, too, if we're to have any hope of getting back to affordable health insurance (that isn't massively subsidized, at least).
-
I would be fine with getting rid of that, but then I would want them to regulate the drug patent laws. I have a prescription that Canada has had a generic version of for a decade that costs $30. However, same drug here has no generic available and costs $180. Pre existing conditions make is so it won't be covered (this happened to me 8 yrs ago). Same company makes my name brand and Canada's generic. Our laws allow the company to continue to eff us. Also, the drug has been out for at least 19yrs.
It's a pretty common example.
-
The real issue with all this is that there is so much wrong, and politicians spend all of their time working on each other rather than legislation, that there is no way anything of any size, that isn't a defense issue, gets resolved in a comprehensive and helpful way. We would have to suspend campaigning and fundraising for like a decade for any thing of substance to be completed correctly, and that assumes that drug/insurance/etc lobbies wouldn't eff it all up along the way.
-
The real issue with all this is that there is so much wrong, and politicians spend all of their time working on each other rather than legislation, that there is no way anything of any size, that isn't a defense issue, gets resolved in a comprehensive and helpful way. We would have to suspend campaigning and fundraising for like a decade for any thing of substance to be completed correctly, and that assumes that drug/insurance/etc lobbies wouldn't eff it all up along the way.
Well, I'd suggest electing a Republican president and retaining GOP control of the House and Senate would be sufficient to fix these problems, but you're right - they'd find a way to eff it up. They've been almost completely worthless since winning the midterms (even considering that Obama is still president).
-
house terms should be 4 years, presidential terms should be 8 years
-
house terms should be 4 years, presidential terms should be 8 years
Yep and house and senate should be limited to 2 terms and the pres to 1.
-
The real issue with all this is that there is so much wrong, and politicians spend all of their time working on each other rather than legislation, that there is no way anything of any size, that isn't a defense issue, gets resolved in a comprehensive and helpful way. We would have to suspend campaigning and fundraising for like a decade for any thing of substance to be completed correctly, and that assumes that drug/insurance/etc lobbies wouldn't eff it all up along the way.
Well, I'd suggest electing a Republican president and retaining GOP control of the House and Senate would be sufficient to fix these problems, but you're right - they'd find a way to eff it up. They've been almost completely worthless since winning the midterms (even considering that Obama is still president).
I don't trust "the party of biz" to take something away form some of the largest biz's in our country. I don't trust either party to do it. Too much money out there to change their minds.
-
Free healthcare would fix all these issues and kill the immoral business of health insurance
Win/win :thumbs:
-
house terms should be 4 years, presidential terms should be 8 years
Yep and house and senate should be limited to 2 terms and the pres to 1.
In that case I'd probably go 10 for pres, 8 for Senate, 6 for reps. 2 years is just a ridiculously short time to get up to speed at any job, let alone one you're constantly campaigning to keep.
-
Free healthcare would fix all these issues and kill the immoral business of health insurance
Win/win :thumbs:
We're the good guys, we do what's right.
-
house terms should be 4 years, presidential terms should be 8 years
Yep and house and senate should be limited to 2 terms and the pres to 1.
In that case I'd probably go 10 for pres, 8 for Senate, 6 for reps. 2 years is just a ridiculously short time to get up to speed at any job, let alone one you're constantly campaigning to keep.
Despite all that we know about campaigns and the limits of elections, I am pretty loathe to give that long a leash to politicians without facing the wrath of voters.
-
I am fine with 4 yrs or 6 yrs with 2 yr limits, house and Senate respectively.
-
house terms should be 4 years, presidential terms should be 8 years
Yep and house and senate should be limited to 2 terms and the pres to 1.
In that case I'd probably go 10 for pres, 8 for Senate, 6 for reps. 2 years is just a ridiculously short time to get up to speed at any job, let alone one you're constantly campaigning to keep.
Despite all that we know about campaigns and the limits of elections, I am pretty loathe to give that long a leash to politicians without facing the wrath of voters.
Good point, maybe make recall elections easier under this system? :dunno:
-
Free healthcare would fix all these issues and kill the immoral business of health insurance
Win/win :thumbs:
When buy something on credit card, do you consider it to be "free"?
-
Free healthcare would fix all these issues and kill the immoral business of health insurance
Win/win :thumbs:
When buy something on credit card, do you consider it to be "free"?
do you correct someone if they call a toll-less road free?
-
rough ridin' obamaroads :curse:
-
normal person - "you can take i-70 to topeka for a few dollars, or take 24 for free"
ksuw - "actually it's not free at all, it's paid for by socialism" (https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com.au%2Fnerd_smiley_face_round_stickers-r5334333b0f8c408aae1f7517c530d072_v9waf_8byvr_512.jpg%3Fbg%3D0xffffff&hash=3ef19dd427643a9f800f855fd7d356f84e9ecd8d)
-
Free healthcare would fix all these issues and kill the immoral business of health insurance
Win/win :thumbs:
When buy something on credit card, do you consider it to be "free"?
do you correct someone if they call a toll-less road free?
I guess it would depend on the context. If someone said "we should just make all roads free" then yeah I would probably correct them. They aren't free. If you think they're free just because you don't pay a toll, you don't have a very good understanding of money and you probably shouldn't be voting. (But I think in your case you vote Green Party or something instead of the Dems, so that's pretty harmless.)
-
Free healthcare would fix all these issues and kill the immoral business of health insurance
Win/win :thumbs:
When buy something on credit card, do you consider it to be "free"?
do you correct someone if they call a toll-less road free?
I guess it would depend on the context. If someone said "we should just make all roads free" then yeah I would probably correct them. They aren't free. If you think they're free just because you don't pay a toll, you don't have a very good understanding of money and you probably shouldn't be voting. (But I think in your case you vote Green Party or something instead of the Dems, so that's pretty harmless.)
Wouldn't it be easier if we could just dispense with the trouble of democracy?
-
ksuw is the type to tell a cop "i pay your salary!" :'bye cruel world:
-
I am fine with 4 yrs or 6 yrs with 2 yr limits, house and Senate respectively.
I'd be ok with three 4 years terms for Reps, voting happening every off 2 year cycle from the prez. (so 2014 - 2018 - 2022 etc)
I's fine with the senate being 6 years, ans split up in roughly 3rds for each election every 2 years, the just need to be limited to 2 terms
Prez at two 4 year terms is fine by me, just get rid of the electoral college crap, it's useless and has run it's course. Just have it be national popular vote.
-
I heard clips of his announcement speech. Very hope and change-y.
Much more articulate and intelligent sounding when talking unscripted than bush or obama.
His announcement speech was scripted.
Thx, libtard
-
ksuw is the type to tell a cop "i pay your salary!" :'bye cruel world:
No, too cliche.
-
Cruz is too ugly to win.
-
Cruz is a loser
-
Cruz is too ugly to win.
Nobody's going to out-ugly Hillary. She better hope it's not a beauty contest.
-
Cruz is a loser
I wouldn't call somebody who clerked for the SC and was elected to the US Senate in his 40s a loser. By definition, that's not a loser.
-
I'm a registered republican and I wouldn't vote for him, that makes him a loser in my book
-
Cruz is a loser
I wouldn't call somebody who clerked for the SC and was elected to the US Senate in his 40s a loser. By definition, that's not a loser.
I'd call him Obama
-
Is that Nixon Hillary? Looks like Nixon with Hilary hair.
-
Holy crap! On a scale of 1-10, how excited were you to find that, Dax? I am guessing somewhere around a 10.25
-
Cruz is a loser
I wouldn't call somebody who clerked for the SC and was elected to the US Senate in his 40s a loser. By definition, that's not a loser.
I'd call him Obama
I wouldn't call Obama a loser either, but he didn't clerk for the SC. His legal resume is much less impressive than Cruz. I mean, damn - the guy clerked for Rehnquist and argued 10 times before the Supreme Court as Texas's Solictor General before being elected to the Senate. He's clearly a very intelligent person.
-
Cruz is a loser
I wouldn't call somebody who clerked for the SC and was elected to the US Senate in his 40s a loser. By definition, that's not a loser.
I'd call him Obama
I wouldn't call Obama a loser either, but he didn't clerk for the SC. His legal resume is much less impressive than Cruz. I mean, damn - the guy clerked for Rehnquist and argued 10 times before the Supreme Court as Texas's Solictor General before being elected to the Senate. He's clearly a very intelligent person.
Good, because their resumes are very similar. BO got the more impressive private Biglaw job, Cruz the more impressive clerkship though it isn't clear which positions either applied for. In other words, the editor of Harvard LR would likely be offered a clerkship at the SC if they applied. Likewise, I am sure Cruz could have gotten a job at Sidley if he wanted.
-
Cruz is a loser
I wouldn't call somebody who clerked for the SC and was elected to the US Senate in his 40s a loser. By definition, that's not a loser.
I'd call him Obama
I wouldn't call Obama a loser either, but he didn't clerk for the SC. His legal resume is much less impressive than Cruz. I mean, damn - the guy clerked for Rehnquist and argued 10 times before the Supreme Court as Texas's Solictor General before being elected to the Senate. He's clearly a very intelligent person.
Good, because their resumes are very similar. BO got the more impressive private Biglaw job, Cruz the more impressive clerkship though it isn't clear which positions either applied for. In other words, the editor of Harvard LR would likely be offered a clerkship at the SC if they applied. Likewise, I am sure Cruz could have gotten a job at Sidley if he wanted.
Obama couldn't hold Cruz's jock in a courtroom. Obama wasn't even published by the law review - he won the job by all accounts based purely on popularity and, yes, his race.
-
Cruz is a loser
I wouldn't call somebody who clerked for the SC and was elected to the US Senate in his 40s a loser. By definition, that's not a loser.
I'd call him Obama
I wouldn't call Obama a loser either, but he didn't clerk for the SC. His legal resume is much less impressive than Cruz. I mean, damn - the guy clerked for Rehnquist and argued 10 times before the Supreme Court as Texas's Solictor General before being elected to the Senate. He's clearly a very intelligent person.
Good, because their resumes are very similar. BO got the more impressive private Biglaw job, Cruz the more impressive clerkship though it isn't clear which positions either applied for. In other words, the editor of Harvard LR would likely be offered a clerkship at the SC if they applied. Likewise, I am sure Cruz could have gotten a job at Sidley if he wanted.
Obama couldn't hold Cruz's jock in a courtroom. Obama wasn't even published by the law review - he won the job by all accounts based purely on popularity and, yes, his race.
Probably true, Cruz just got more experience making legal arguments in court so he got better at it. I don't see that Obama really tried any cases.
LOL at belittling being named head of Harvard Law Review. c'mon man.
-
Also, Obama has already successfully been elected President of the United States twice. That trumps Cruz, given that is also his career goal.
-
Again, I'm not calling Obama a loser. He is many things, but not that. And I'm also not belittling being elected to EIC of the Harvard Law Review. I just don't think it is as significant a legal accomplishment as what Cruz did.
-
Can we agree the both are accomplished ppl yet still make no distinguishable difference other than stirring up stupidity via political dumbassery?
-
Ksuw with a "cruz does things the right way" post :love:
-
Again, I'm not calling Obama a loser. He is many things, but not that. And I'm also not belittling being elected to EIC of the Harvard Law Review. I just don't think it is as significant a legal accomplishment as what Cruz did.
If he can't get himself elected to the EIC of Law Review, not sure I want him being my party's nominee.
-
Rand Paul hasn't even announced his candidacy yet, and he's already got his first major endorsement. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/03/rand-paul-has-j-c-watts-in-his-corner/?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/03/rand-paul-has-j-c-watts-in-his-corner/?_r=0)
Watts was such a stud, too bad he retired.
-
Paul is going to go up in flames.
-
Paul is going to go up in flames.
Sounds cool.
For someone who pretends to be a critical thinker, I would think you'd be fascinated by a contrarian (relatively speaking) like Paul. But then I remember you're just a leftist shill and a "whoever is marked D" lemming.
-
Rand Paul has pretty much exactly the same foreign policy views as the rest of the field. Which are pretty much the same views as Clinton. it will be a miserable election.
-
ACTUAL STUD BOSS
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DFB-22722
-
wonder how much he paid for someone to fill it out
-
wonder how much he paid for someone to fill it out
Hopefully he E-Verified them first.
-
ACTUAL STUD BOSS
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DFB-22722
Man, just imagine if America had elected a competent, conservative president in 2012... Well, we mumped that up. Back to reality.
-
ACTUAL STUD BOSS
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DFB-22722
Man, just imagine if America had elected a competent, conservative president in 2012... Well, we mumped that up. Back to reality.
Too bad there wasn't one running.
-
ACTUAL STUD BOSS
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DFB-22722
Man, just imagine if America had elected a competent, conservative president in 2012... Well, we mumped that up. Back to reality.
Too bad there wasn't one running.
Well that's pretty silly. Romney was. That's who we're talking about.
-
ACTUAL STUD BOSS
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DFB-22722
Man, just imagine if America had elected a competent, conservative president in 2012... Well, we mumped that up. Back to reality.
Too bad there wasn't one running.
Well that's pretty silly. Romney was. That's who we're talking about.
Romney is the Republican equivalent to John Kerry.
-
Rand Paul
:Woot:
The choice everyone can agree upon. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, war dove.
-
wonder how much he paid for someone to fill it out
Hopefully he E-Verified them first.
#jobcreator
-
Rand Paul another egomaniac buttshine running for president, the bright sunshine of truth and hope saying from his butt and illuminating the way for near sighted tea baggers. The man has never led anything, no lengthy political rrecord to examine, issue flopper (wanted to cut defense now he wants to increase it) and IMO naive about foreign policy. Sounds like reverse Obama.
-
Barack Obama another egomaniac buttshine running for president, the bright sunshine of truth and hope saying from his butt and illuminating the way for near sighted leftists and morons. The man has never led anything, no lengthy political rrecord to examine, issue flopper (wanted to cut defense now he wants to increase it) and IMO naive about foreign policy.
Actually nails it
-
Something rubs me the wrong way about Paul. I don't like his voice or speaking style. But on a more substantive basis, I don't think he can possibly hold together the coalition of libertarians, tea party, isolationists, social conservatives, and neocons he's aiming for. He needs the social conservatives and neocons, but I just don't see them getting on board. That would be a disaster worse than what happened to Romney. Thus, if I had to choose between Cruz and Paul, Cruz is more electable because he hasn't gone so far out on the libertarian/isolationist wing.
-
Cruz has the potential to be a very formidable candidate. He has pissed off a number of important people in the Republican Party tho.
-
Rand Paul
:Woot:
The choice everyone can agree upon. Socially liberal , fiscally conservative, war dove.
WTF?
Two Randall Paul hottakes
1. He is in no way, shape, or form a libertarian. People should stop helping him falsely market himself to dumb people.
2. Randall is a bigot and anyone who supports him is a bigot too.
-
Rubio is in
-
Rand Paul
:Woot:
The choice everyone can agree upon. Socially liberal , fiscally conservative, war dove.
WTF?
Two Randall Paul hottakes
1. He is in no way, shape, or form a libertarian. People should stop helping him falsely market himself to dumb people.
2. Randall is a bigot and anyone who supports him is a bigot too.
I'm really curious about his bigotry. Do you have some examples/links?
-
Sure
I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage, and That being said, I'm not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn't mention marriage. Then we don't have to redefine what marriage is; we just don't have marriage in the tax code.
Bigot
CNN's Dana Bash pushed presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on his views on same-sex marriage on Sunday, asking him why, as a libertarian, he doesn't believe gay people should have the freedom to marry.
"Why do you believe just as a core principle, as a libertarian, that people should be left alone, but not when it comes to their right to marry somebody they love?" Bash asked Paul on "State of the Union."
"I do believe people ought to be left alone," Paul responded. "I don't care who you are or what you do at home or who your friends are or what, you know, where you hang out, what kind of music you listen to. What you do in your home is your own business."
"But not when it comes to marriage," Bash added.
Paul responded by differentiating between traditional marriage and a "contract" between gay people.
"Well, no. I mean states -- states will end up making the decisions on these things. I think that there's a religious connotation to marriage. I believe in the traditional religious connotation to this," Paul answered. "But I also believe people ought to be treated fairly under the law. I see no reason why if the marriage contract conveys certain things that if -- if you -- if you want to marry another woman that you can do that and have a contract." Pauls has said before that gay marriage "offends" him and that a "moral crisis" in the U.S. led to same-sex marriage. He's also pitched allowing gays to make a contract with each other, but not get married.
insincere bigot
-
I bet you thought I was going to mention the fact that he disagrees with the premise of the Civil Rights Act because he doesn't believe the federal government should be involved in what he believes is a states right issue. Whatever. I am interested in how in one case he believes that federal intervention is not needed to grant civil rights, but in another he is in favor of the federal government intervening in restricting a civil right.
-
I don't even know why you guys ask.
MIR, like all ignorant, hypocritical, partisan hard-line democrats will go to extreme, irrational and pathetic lengths to convince themselves any and every pub is a bigot. It's their rhetoric, because they literally have nothing positive to sell, but must feed an insatiable desire for power.
Rand Paul says it's okay for gays to get married, but doesn't think it's an issue because ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage. Bigot!!!
Democrat civil rights hero B.O., circa 2008 elections, is opposed to gay marriage. Bigot? NO! Mindlessly cast ballot for the democrat.
Fast forward to 2015, democrat hero and purported feminist raises millions of dollars from foreign governments who have criminalized homosexuality and condone the stoning of women who "allow" themselves to be violently raped. Fire up the absentee ballot - Straight (D)!
But wait, rand Paul was combative with a female interviewer. Bigot!!!! Sexist!!!
These people have the intellectual credibility of a used car salesman addicted to crack. They aren't worth paying any attention to. They live to lie to themselves. It's sad.
-
I don't even know why you guys ask.
MIR, like all ignorant, hypocritical, partisan hard-line democrats will go to extreme, irrational and pathetic lengths to convince themselves any and every pub is a bigot. It's their rhetoric, because they literally have nothing positive to sell, but must feed an insatiable desire for power.
Rand Paul says it's okay for gays to get married, but doesn't think it's an issue because ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage. Bigot!!!
Democrat civil rights hero B.O., circa 2008 elections, is opposed to gay marriage. Bigot? NO! Mindlessly cast ballot for the democrat.
Fast forward to 2015, democrat hero and purported feminist raises millions of dollars from foreign governments who have criminalized homosexuality and condone the stoning of women who "allow" themselves to be violently raped. Fire up the absentee ballot - Straight (D)!
But wait, rand Paul was combative with a female interviewer. Bigot!!!! Sexist!!!
These people have the intellectual credibility of a used car salesman addicted to crack. They aren't worth paying any attention to. They live to lie to themselves. It's sad.
his opposition to the Civil Rights Act is pretty bad
-
And another Chad next to (D) falls to the floor.
Like I said, these people have no minds, no thought process. They are closed minded and will do and say anything for the D.
-
And another Chad next to (D) falls to the floor.
Like I said, these people have no minds, no thought process. They are closed minded and will do and say anything for the D.
Hillary sucks, I won't vote for her.
-
Hillary is the most stable option at this point. Everyone else is super insane.
-
Hillary is the most stable option at this point. Everyone else is super insane.
Jeb seems pretty stable, too.
-
Not voting for her.
-
Unless the dems come up with a strong challenger, this election is Jeb's to lose, imo.
Edit: meaning someone not hillary.
-
Jeb seems like the 'black sheep' of the bush family or whatever and will go out of his way to not gain his fathers approval or something.
-
'Jeb, tell them you hate the gays'
Jeb kisses a dude in front of Barbara
-
Unless the dems come up with a strong challenger, this election is Jeb's to lose, imo.
Edit: meaning someone not hillary.
Jeb has to get out of his primary first. Lots of pubs hate him for putting being a decent human being ahead of party politics.
-
I don't even know why you guys ask.
MIR, like all ignorant, hypocritical, partisan hard-line democrats will go to extreme, irrational and pathetic lengths to convince themselves any and every pub is a bigot. It's their rhetoric, because they literally have nothing positive to sell, but must feed an insatiable desire for power.
Rand Paul says it's okay for gays to get married, but doesn't think it's an issue because ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage. Bigot!!!
Democrat civil rights hero B.O., circa 2008 elections, is opposed to gay marriage. Bigot? NO! Mindlessly cast ballot for the democrat.
Fast forward to 2015, democrat hero and purported feminist raises millions of dollars from foreign governments who have criminalized homosexuality and condone the stoning of women who "allow" themselves to be violently raped. Fire up the absentee ballot - Straight (D)!
But wait, rand Paul was combative with a female interviewer. Bigot!!!! Sexist!!!
These people have the intellectual credibility of a used car salesman addicted to crack. They aren't worth paying any attention to. They live to lie to themselves. It's sad.
You guys notice that FSD conveniently danced around the point, funny little thing you did there I'll address these things though.
1. Paul has said several different times in several different ways that he views gays getting married as different, non-traditional. I don't need to make the argument as to why he is a bigot, he did it for me. He has not made the argument that you tried to attribute to him "ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage," nice try. I posted a stand alone quote and all of his quotes from another interview and never did he mention that the government shouldn't license marriage, he hid behind religion.
2. What Obama did is even more abhorrent than what Paul is doing. I respect Paul for sticking to his convictions no matter how wrong they are. Obama absolutely did believe that gays should have the right to marry but he shoved that aside for political reasoning; it was disgusting and I'm glad he righted that wrong. What the hell does that have to do with Rand Paul though, is Obama his adviser?
3. I guess I missed my post advocating for Hilary Clinton. What the hell does she have to do with Rand Paul being inconsistent on states rights as they relate to civil rights?
4. I think he acted like that on that interview because he's an bad person. No one on this blog called Rand Paul a sexist, not sure why you brought it up. Deflect deflect deflect.
Ironic that you talked about intellectual credibility when you tried to smoke screen and deflect your way to a sorry ass counter argument instead of just addressing what Paul has said multiple times.
-
Serious question because I can't profess to be really familiar with either candidate, but why are Scott Walker or Marco Rubio "super insane"? I mean, I can understand why liberals hate Ted Cruz, who is an unabashed conservative but sometimes goes off the rails to make his point.
But what about Walker and Rubio? They both seem to be fresh, energetic, reasonably conservative, and generally reasonable. Both would seem like a very palatable alternative to Hillary for everyone except deeply indoctrinated Dems.
Jeb Bush would be a decent president - better than we've got now - but almost nobody wants another round of Clinton v. Bush. It would lead to serious voter apathy, which would probably work to Hillary's advantage given her likely edge in turnout machine. One of her biggest weaknesses is that she's old and stale, and a fresher face on the other side can better exploit that.
-
Serious question because I can't profess to be really familiar with either candidate, but why are Scott Walker or Marco Rubio "super insane"? I mean, I can understand why liberals hate Ted Cruz, who is an unabashed conservative but sometimes goes off the rails to make his point.
But what about Walker and Rubio? They both seem to be fresh, energetic, reasonably conservative, and generally reasonable. Both would seem like a very palatable alternative to Hillary for everyone except deeply indoctrinated Dems.
Jeb Bush would be a decent president - better than we've got now - but almost nobody wants another round of Clinton v. Bush. It would lead to serious voter apathy, which would probably work to Hillary's advantage given her likely edge in turnout machine. One of her biggest weaknesses is that she's old and stale, and a fresher face on the other side can better exploit that.
I don't know much about Rubio. He seems like a nice enough person that I might be willing to vote for. Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.
-
Serious question because I can't profess to be really familiar with either candidate, but why are Scott Walker or Marco Rubio "super insane"? I mean, I can understand why liberals hate Ted Cruz, who is an unabashed conservative but sometimes goes off the rails to make his point.
But what about Walker and Rubio? They both seem to be fresh, energetic, reasonably conservative, and generally reasonable. Both would seem like a very palatable alternative to Hillary for everyone except deeply indoctrinated Dems.
Jeb Bush would be a decent president - better than we've got now - but almost nobody wants another round of Clinton v. Bush. It would lead to serious voter apathy, which would probably work to Hillary's advantage given her likely edge in turnout machine. One of her biggest weaknesses is that she's old and stale, and a fresher face on the other side can better exploit that.
Not sure who used the term super insane that you put in quotations, but there are such small differences between Walker, Rubio, Cruz, and Paul are so small it really doesn't merit discussion. The biggest difference is that Cruz is certainly more of a grandstanding jackass but the policy beliefs are pretty much the same.
I'd say the same thing about Jeb and Hillary, both moderates prone to swing one way or the other on certain issues, whatever makes them seem the most centrist. :Yuck:
-
The issues are mostly irrelevant. I just pick the candidate who preserves the largest sliver of integrity. Not going out of your way to show that you are an bad person is also a good selling point.
-
The issues are mostly irrelevant. I just pick the candidate who preserves the largest sliver of integrity. Not going out of your way to show that you are an bad person is also a good selling point.
So I'm guessing you're 100% out on Christie.
-
The issues are mostly irrelevant. I just pick the candidate who preserves the largest sliver of integrity. Not going out of your way to show that you are an bad person is also a good selling point.
So I'm guessing you're 100% out on Christie.
90%. Everything is relative and there is plenty of time for everyone else to make themselves look worse.
-
Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.
That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?
-
Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.
That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?
Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.
-
Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.
That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?
Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.
Wait - if you belive that God played a role in human intelligence, then you're not smart enough to balance the budget? That's not just a trivial litmus test - it's an ignorant and (some might say) bigoted-against-religion litmus test.
-
Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.
That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?
Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.
Wait - if you belive that God played a role in human intelligence, then you're not smart enough to balance the budget? That's not just a trivial litmus test - it's an ignorant and (some might say) bigoted-against-religion litmus test.
I never even mentioned God. If you don't believe in evolution, despite all of the evidence supporting it, then yes, you are too stupid to be POTUS.
-
I agree w that.
-
Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.
That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?
Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.
Wait - if you belive that God played a role in human intelligence, then you're not smart enough to balance the budget? That's not just a trivial litmus test - it's an ignorant and (some might say) bigoted-against-religion litmus test.
I never even mentioned God. If you don't believe in evolution, despite all of the evidence supporting it, then yes, you are too stupid to be POTUS.
The role of God in evolution is not something that can be scientifically proven - and yet many believe that the theory of evolution necessarily precludes god. This is a nuanced theological discussion that politicians are best off leaving alone. A presidential candidate's opinion on the matter is neither necessary nor meaningful. But because Walker wisely avoids pissing off people on either side of a politically irrelevant issue, you assume he is a creationist who fails your litmus test. It's dumb.
-
Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.
That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?
Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.
Wait - if you belive that God played a role in human intelligence, then you're not smart enough to balance the budget? That's not just a trivial litmus test - it's an ignorant and (some might say) bigoted-against-religion litmus test.
I never even mentioned God. If you don't believe in evolution, despite all of the evidence supporting it, then yes, you are too stupid to be POTUS.
The role of God in evolution is not something that can be scientifically proven - and yet many believe that the theory of evolution necessarily precludes god. This is a nuanced theological discussion that politicians are best off leaving alone. A presidential candidate's opinion on the matter is neither necessary nor meaningful. But because Walker wisely avoids pissing off people on either side of a politically irrelevant issue, you assume he is a creationist who fails your litmus test. It's dumb.
Nobody's opinion on any fact is necessary or meaningful. If I say I believe in evolution, that's no more of an opinion than saying I believe in gravity.
-
Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.
That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?
Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.
Wait - if you belive that God played a role in human intelligence, then you're not smart enough to balance the budget? That's not just a trivial litmus test - it's an ignorant and (some might say) bigoted-against-religion litmus test.
I never even mentioned God. If you don't believe in evolution, despite all of the evidence supporting it, then yes, you are too stupid to be POTUS.
The role of God in evolution is not something that can be scientifically proven - and yet many believe that the theory of evolution necessarily precludes god. This is a nuanced theological discussion that politicians are best off leaving alone. A presidential candidate's opinion on the matter is neither necessary nor meaningful. But because Walker wisely avoids pissing off people on either side of a politically irrelevant issue, you assume he is a creationist who fails your litmus test. It's dumb.
Nobody's opinion on any fact is necessary or meaningful. If I say I believe in evolution, that's no more of an opinion than saying I believe in gravity.
Now you're just reaching down to stupidity. First by equating the law of gravity in terms of certainty to the theory of evolution, but also claiming that a presidential candidate's opinion on things they can actually effect, like the budget, is no more relevant than personal beliefs on issues they won't affect.
-
what's scott walker's plan for fixing a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray?
-
Now you're just reaching down to stupidity. First by equating the law of gravity in terms of certainty to the theory of evolution
Well, they are both 100% certain.
but also claiming that a presidential candidate's opinion on things they can actually effect, like the budget, is no more relevant than personal beliefs on issues they won't affect.
It's less relevant, if anything.
-
Hey, K-S-U, what's your opinion on what time the sun is going to rise tomorrow? Oh, 6:41? You must not believe in God or something.
-
Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.
That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?
sounds made up
-
I also love when people try to shove aside abhorrent social issues that presidential candidates have because they don't matter. In our current political climate social issues matter the most, presidents can have a higher impact on social policy than they can all that other stuff you mentioned.
-
Now you're just reaching down to stupidity. First by equating the law of gravity in terms of certainty to the theory of evolution
Well, they are both 100% certain.
Gravity is 100%, hence it being a "law." I'd say evolution is more 98 or 99% when it comes to the basic theory of all life evolving from single-cell organisms simply because we do not have a complete fossil record. But again, you are missing the point. Yes, there are creationists, but the real debate over evolution is whether God (or aliens, or whatever) intervened in the evolutionary process. It is an issue that has bitterly divided the atheists from religious people. And again, politicians should not weigh in on issues that are both irrelevant to the politician's duties and needlessly divisive.
-
Now you're just reaching down to stupidity. First by equating the law of gravity in terms of certainty to the theory of evolution
Well, they are both 100% certain.
Gravity is 100%, hence it being a "law." I'd say evolution is more 98 or 99% when it comes to the basic theory of all life evolving from single-cell organisms simply because we do not have a complete fossil record. But again, you are missing the point. Yes, there are creationists, but the real debate over evolution is whether God (or aliens, or whatever) intervened in the evolutionary process. It is an issue that has bitterly divided the atheists from religious people. And again, politicians should not weigh in on issues that are both irrelevant and needlessly divisive.
They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain, rounding down. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.
-
They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.
Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue, that's why it is divisive, and that is why Walker doesn't engage in it (because it is irrelevant and therefore needlessly divisive).
-
They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.
Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue.
Yeah, there is an infinitesimally small difference. For all intents and purposes, there is a 0% chance that somebody who doesn't believe in evolution is right. The only people who turn evolution into a theological issue are the young earth lunatics.
-
I don't even know why you guys ask.
MIR, like all ignorant, hypocritical, partisan hard-line democrats will go to extreme, irrational and pathetic lengths to convince themselves any and every pub is a bigot. It's their rhetoric, because they literally have nothing positive to sell, but must feed an insatiable desire for power.
Rand Paul says it's okay for gays to get married, but doesn't think it's an issue because ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage. Bigot!!!
Democrat civil rights hero B.O., circa 2008 elections, is opposed to gay marriage. Bigot? NO! Mindlessly cast ballot for the democrat.
Fast forward to 2015, democrat hero and purported feminist raises millions of dollars from foreign governments who have criminalized homosexuality and condone the stoning of women who "allow" themselves to be violently raped. Fire up the absentee ballot - Straight (D)!
But wait, rand Paul was combative with a female interviewer. Bigot!!!! Sexist!!!
These people have the intellectual credibility of a used car salesman addicted to crack. They aren't worth paying any attention to. They live to lie to themselves. It's sad.
You guys notice that FSD conveniently danced around the point, funny little thing you did there I'll address these things though.
1. Paul has said several different times in several different ways that he views gays getting married as different, non-traditional. I don't need to make the argument as to why he is a bigot, he did it for me. He has not made the argument that you tried to attribute to him "ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage," nice try. I posted a stand alone quote and all of his quotes from another interview and never did he mention that the government shouldn't license marriage, he hid behind religion.
2. What Obama did is even more abhorrent than what Paul is doing. I respect Paul for sticking to his convictions no matter how wrong they are. Obama absolutely did believe that gays should have the right to marry but he shoved that aside for political reasoning; it was disgusting and I'm glad he righted that wrong. What the hell does that have to do with Rand Paul though, is Obama his adviser?
3. I guess I missed my post advocating for Hilary Clinton. What the hell does she have to do with Rand Paul being inconsistent on states rights as they relate to civil rights?
4. I think he acted like that on that interview because he's an bad person. No one on this blog called Rand Paul a sexist, not sure why you brought it up. Deflect deflect deflect.
Ironic that you talked about intellectual credibility when you tried to smoke screen and deflect your way to a sorry ass counter argument instead of just addressing what Paul has said multiple times.
Your (and every democrat) hypocrisy undermines your credibility, you dolt, and nothing in that long winded retort refutes that. These threads and posts are not made in a vacuum like some Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) high school debate. The "missing link" to the ideological POV is contained in your OP pasted above. If you think stating that gay marriage is different than straight marriage or not traditional is bigoted then you don't know the meaning of the words. None of those statements are even remotely controversial.
It's pathetic that you've taken such a shallow, unreasonable and partisan position. You should be embarrassed. But you aren't, so go fill out your hillary write in ballot and support your bigot president (who only supports gay marriage when he needs votes).
-
They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.
Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue, that's why it is divisive, and that is why Walker doesn't engage in it (because it is irrelevant and therefore needlessly divisive).
If he answers in a way that doesn't piss off his lunatic base then he has to reject established, baby steps science. Real catch 22. Doesn't want to commit to going full dumbass himself, but doesn't want to alienate all of the raging shitbrains he needs to get elected. #divisive #politics #bases
-
They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.
Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue.
Yeah, there is an infinitesimally small difference. For all intents and purposes, there is a 0% chance that somebody who doesn't believe in evolution is right. The only people who turn evolution into a theological issue are the young earth lunatics.
You've just perfectly demonstrated the problem, comparing anyone who believes God had a hand in evolution to young earth lunatics. That is an absurd thing to say. And that is probably why Scott Walker wisely avoids this needlessly divisive issue that is irrelevant to his job function.
-
They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.
Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue.
Yeah, there is an infinitesimally small difference. For all intents and purposes, there is a 0% chance that somebody who doesn't believe in evolution is right. The only people who turn evolution into a theological issue are the young earth lunatics.
You've just perfectly demonstrated the problem, comparing anyone who believes God had a hand in evolution to young earth lunatics. That is an absurd thing to say. And that is probably why Scott Walker wisely avoids this needlessly divisive issue that is irrelevant to his job function.
I never made that comparison. You might have, but I didn't.
-
They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.
Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue.
Yeah, there is an infinitesimally small difference. For all intents and purposes, there is a 0% chance that somebody who doesn't believe in evolution is right. The only people who turn evolution into a theological issue are the young earth lunatics.
You've just perfectly demonstrated the problem, comparing anyone who believes God had a hand in evolution to young earth lunatics. That is an absurd thing to say. And that is probably why Scott Walker wisely avoids this needlessly divisive issue that is irrelevant to his job function.
He didn't do that and you know it, K-S-U_Strawman! He specifically called out a particular group of crazies.
-
If you think stating that gay marriage is different than straight marriage or not traditional is bigoted then you don't know the meaning of the words. None of those statements are even remotely controversial.
They should be to people who aren't bigoted idiots. At one point it wasn't remotely controversial to say that white men should own black men or that wives were chattel or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. #tradition #statusquo #everythingisfine #iamastraightwhitemale
-
If you think stating that gay marriage is different than straight marriage or not traditional is bigoted then you don't know the meaning of the words. None of those statements are even remotely controversial.
They should be to people who aren't bigoted idiots. At one point it wasn't remotely controversial to say that white men should own black men or that wives were chattel or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. #tradition #statusquo #everythingisfine #iamastraightwhitemale
Get a dictionary, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Saying they are different or not traditional is to say nothing. Using those as reasons to prevent gay people from doing whatever the eff they want is a problem. Uncle Rand isn't in that camp sans wild conjecture from dishonest troglodytes like MIR
-
If you think stating that gay marriage is different than straight marriage or not traditional is bigoted then you don't know the meaning of the words. None of those statements are even remotely controversial.
They should be to people who aren't bigoted idiots. At one point it wasn't remotely controversial to say that white men should own black men or that wives were chattel or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. #tradition #statusquo #everythingisfine #iamastraightwhitemale
Get a dictionary, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Saying they are different or not traditional is to say nothing. Using those as reasons to prevent gay people from doing whatever the eff they want is a problem. Uncle Rand isn't in that camp sans wild conjecture from dishonest troglodytes like MIR
The former propagates the latter, shitbrain. Rand can't fire up fearful, hateful mongoloids and not expect them to act on his bigot speech. He knows better than anyone that's what they do best. In fact, he and others counts on it. Keeps them distracted and together. What do they have if they don't have an enemy? #others #getem #us #them #politics #america
-
Get a thesaurus, fuckface.
-
Get an almanac, dickskin.
-
Get an atlas, cocksock.
-
I do like that as a way to start off a pit response post. Tell them to get some kind of book and call them a name.
-
Get an encyclopedia, shitbrannica.
-
Get a Michelin Guide, rape baby.
-
Get a thesaurus, fuckface.
Why don't pull one out of your ass and look up propagates, you rough ridin' loser. It's completely unnecessary to pretend that those comments aren't true. To pretend it is bigotry is to claim the statement "rich white farmers in south traditionally owned slaves" is racist. It's not and it's true.
Like I said, these people are incapable of any kind of independent thought, critical thinking and in many cases (like this one) dont even possess the cognitive skills of a household plant. So pathetic.
-
Get a To Catch a Mockingbird, Boo Radley
-
Oh my god, rand said that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals. rough ridin' crazy bigot. Then he said gay marriage is new on the scene. What!?!? That's the same as trying to cure homosexuality with electroshock therapy. It's monstrous.
Get a rough ridin' clue, mouth breathing lemmings.
-
I'm going to fire up a letter to Houghton Mifflin for publishing a biology book that distinguishes between homosexuality and heterosexuality because that's rough ridin' bigoted. Then I'm going to finish rough ridin' my donkey and huffing gasoline, because that's what stupid rough ridin' hillbilly trash does.
Get learned, river trash
-
BOOYAH
-
he didn't just say the types of marriage were different, he said gay marriage offends him and that a moral crisis makes people think gay marriage is OK.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-moral-crisis-gay-marraige-revival
-
Oh my god, rand said that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals. rough ridin' crazy bigot. Then he said gay marriage is new on the scene. What!?!? That's the same as trying to cure homosexuality with electroshock therapy. It's monstrous.
Get a rough ridin' clue, mouth breathing lemmings.
:nono: You're trying to cheat. I understand why, but don't.
gay marriage is different than straight marriage
Is it different because of dueling peens or on account of the scissoring? The way they have sex defines the nature of the marriage? Seems like other than that it's the same. Pretty simple-minded to distill a loving and committed relationship between two adults down to the way they like to eff.
What if they're old and don't really eff anymore, can they get married then?
-
Get a thesaurus, fuckface.
Why don't pull one out of your ass and look up propagates, you rough ridin' loser.
synonyms:
bear, beget, engender, father, generate, grow, increase, mother, multiply, originate
:confused:
-
he didn't just say the types of marriage were different, he said gay marriage offends him and that a moral crisis makes people think gay marriage is OK.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-moral-crisis-gay-marraige-revival
Get a Roberto Bolano novel, slutbreath. It's not Adam and Steve.
-
he didn't just say the types of marriage were different, he said gay marriage offends him and that a moral crisis makes people think gay marriage is OK.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-moral-crisis-gay-marraige-revival
Get a Roberto Bolano novel, slutbreath. It's not Adam and Steve.
:driving:
-
Oh my god, rand said that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals. rough ridin' crazy bigot. Then he said gay marriage is new on the scene. What!?!? That's the same as trying to cure homosexuality with electroshock therapy. It's monstrous.
Get a rough ridin' clue, mouth breathing lemmings.
:nono: You're trying to cheat. I understand why, but don't.
gay marriage is different than straight marriage
Is it different because of dueling peens or on account of the scissoring? The way they have sex defines the nature of the marriage? Seems like other than that it's the same. Pretty simple-minded to distill a loving and committed relationship between two adults down to the way they like to eff.
What if they're old and don't really eff anymore, can they get married then?
It's different because it's not the same. To what degree they're different doesn't make them anymore the same. Regardless, it's really rough ridin' stupid that any two people have to apply to the state and pay money to obtain a license to be married. Get rid of that, it's idiotic.
If rand is a bigot for his personal views regarding the morality of gay marriage, then nearly every elected politician is a bigot. And you and michigancat have voted for a shitload of them.
-
Rubio needs to keep his haircut fresh. He looks dweeb when it grows out.
-
Conflating morality to bigotry or policy doesn't do a lot to dissuade me that ya'll aren't a collection of slobbering morons parroting angry talking points. Regardless of how he gets there (freedom to contract contra civil right), he favors gay marriage.
-
Conflating morality to bigotry or policy doesn't do a lot to dissuade me that ya'll aren't a collection of slobbering morons parroting angry talking points. Regardless of how he gets there (freedom to contract contra civil right), he favors gay marriage.
What the eff? I gave you two quotes and rusty gave you another quote that directly states that he doesn't favor gay marriage. We are ahving this conversation because he has unequivocally stated he doesn't favor gay marriage. Are you real?
-
The only real answer to this is to eliminate "marriage" licenses and replace them with partnership contracts. If a couple wants to have a religious marriage ceremony, go for it, but it will be meaningless to the government. A partnership contract can be between any two or more humans that agree to share all income, debt, and tax liability.
-
The only real answer to this is to eliminate "marriage" licenses and replace them with partnership contracts. If a couple wants to have a religious marriage ceremony, go for it, but it will be meaningless to the government. A partnership contract can be between any two or more humans that agree to share all income, debt, and tax liability.
gay haters (republicans) never propose that though
-
The only real answer to this is to eliminate "marriage" licenses and replace them with partnership contracts. If a couple wants to have a religious marriage ceremony, go for it, but it will be meaningless to the government. A partnership contract can be between any two or more humans that agree to share all income, debt, and tax liability.
Works for me
-
The only real answer to this is to eliminate "marriage" licenses and replace them with partnership contracts. If a couple wants to have a religious marriage ceremony, go for it, but it will be meaningless to the government. A partnership contract can be between any two or more humans that agree to share all income, debt, and tax liability.
That works. Issuing marriage licenses to gay couples works, too. So I wouldn't say that's the only answer.
-
The only real answer to this is to eliminate "marriage" licenses and replace them with partnership contracts. If a couple wants to have a religious marriage ceremony, go for it, but it will be meaningless to the government. A partnership contract can be between any two or more humans that agree to share all income, debt, and tax liability.
That works. Issuing marriage licenses to gay couples works, too. So I wouldn't say that's the only answer.
The reason I put marriage in quotes is because the word connotates a religious ceremony. Some religious people want to keep the sanctity of that word, which they say is defined in the bible as between a man and a woman. Some gay people are unwilling to compromise on this point and insist on being "married".
-
The only real answer to this is to eliminate "marriage" licenses and replace them with partnership contracts. If a couple wants to have a religious marriage ceremony, go for it, but it will be meaningless to the government. A partnership contract can be between any two or more humans that agree to share all income, debt, and tax liability.
That works. Issuing marriage licenses to gay couples works, too. So I wouldn't say that's the only answer.
The reason I put marriage in quotes is because the word conotates a religious ceremony. Some religious people want to keep the sanctity of that word, which they say is defined in the bible as between a man and a woman. Some gay people are unwilling to compromise on this point and insist on being "married".
I can't say that I blame them, considering that when you are married you get all of the benefits that come with it, and when you are "unioned" or whatever you call it, you get a piece of paper and nothing else.
-
The only real answer to this is to eliminate "marriage" licenses and replace them with partnership contracts. If a couple wants to have a religious marriage ceremony, go for it, but it will be meaningless to the government. A partnership contract can be between any two or more humans that agree to share all income, debt, and tax liability.
That works. Issuing marriage licenses to gay couples works, too. So I wouldn't say that's the only answer.
The reason I put marriage in quotes is because the word conotates a religious ceremony. Some religious people want to keep the sanctity of that word, which they say is defined in the bible as between a man and a woman. Some gay people are unwilling to compromise on this point and insist on being "married".
I can't say that I blame them, considering that when you are married you get all of the benefits that come with it, and when you are "unioned" or whatever you call it, you get a piece of paper and nothing else.
Yes, it depends on which state you're in, and the IRS is still not giving equal rights to domestic partnerships.
It would be a great platform addition for a candidate to take up. It would preserve the word marriage and give equal rights to gay couples.
-
The only real answer to this is to eliminate "marriage" licenses and replace them with partnership contracts. If a couple wants to have a religious marriage ceremony, go for it, but it will be meaningless to the government. A partnership contract can be between any two or more humans that agree to share all income, debt, and tax liability.
That works. Issuing marriage licenses to gay couples works, too. So I wouldn't say that's the only answer.
The reason I put marriage in quotes is because the word conotates a religious ceremony. Some religious people want to keep the sanctity of that word, which they say is defined in the bible as between a man and a woman. Some gay people are unwilling to compromise on this point and insist on being "married".
I can't say that I blame them, considering that when you are married you get all of the benefits that come with it, and when you are "unioned" or whatever you call it, you get a piece of paper and nothing else.
Yes, it depends on which state you're in, and the IRS is still not giving equal rights to domestic partnerships.
It would be a great platform addition for a candidate to take up. It would preserve the word marriage and give equal rights to gay couples.
wouldn't fly with the base, they don't care about the word marriage, just hating on gays.
-
Lol at the neocons accepting that :lol:
-
https://twitter.com/kibblesmith/status/587644010128367616
-
https://twitter.com/kibblesmith/status/587644010128367616
:lol:
-
The only real answer to this is to eliminate "marriage" licenses and replace them with partnership contracts. If a couple wants to have a religious marriage ceremony, go for it, but it will be meaningless to the government. A partnership contract can be between any two or more humans that agree to share all income, debt, and tax liability.
That works. Issuing marriage licenses to gay couples works, too. So I wouldn't say that's the only answer.
The reason I put marriage in quotes is because the word connotates a religious ceremony. Some religious people want to keep the sanctity of that word, which they say is defined in the bible as between a man and a woman. Some gay people are unwilling to compromise on this point and insist on being "married".
May have something to do with being gay and having religious beliefs not being mutually exclusive. May wife and I attended a predominately open gay FUMC when we lived in Boston.
-
Conflating morality to bigotry or policy doesn't do a lot to dissuade me that ya'll aren't a collection of slobbering morons parroting angry talking points. Regardless of how he gets there (freedom to contract contra civil right), he favors gay marriage.
What the eff? I gave you two quotes and rusty gave you another quote that directly states that he doesn't favor gay marriage. We are ahving this conversation because he has unequivocally stated he doesn't favor gay marriage. Are you real?
Uhhh, thanks for validating my post. . . :lol:
-
Also, I swear I read somewhere in the pit recently a comment from a libtard along the lines of
"In this day and age the president has far more influence and control over social issues than fiscal ones"
:lol:
I mean, what in the ever living eff would compel somebody to state something so stupid? :lol:
Well our president is a disaster and we did nothing but irreparable harm in our short stay in power, sooooo, the new shtick is president's direct social issues, I guess. Deploy the talking points to our zombie constituency
-
(https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1797412_845637485526287_8144598403252015316_n.jpg?oh=029a8a19ef058118cd041ba8ba844452&oe=55D3B89D)
-
Rand Paul will not be pleased by this. Libertarian David Koch wants Scott Walker for president. I like Walker better than Paul, too.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/election/article19122708.html (http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/election/article19122708.html)
-
guh. walker is wisconsins brownback. kazudub, is Walker Brownback your dream ticket?
-
guh. walker is wisconsins brownback. kazudub, is Walker Brownback your dream ticket?
No, I don't really like Brownback all that much as a person or a politician. I'd like Walker / Fiorina.
-
I've never lived in a state where the sitting governor ran for president; people in the state of Wisconsin have to be pissed about the amount of time Walker has spent out of state campaigning already and he hasn't even announced yet.
-
I've never lived in a state where the sitting governor ran for president; people in the state of Wisconsin have to be pissed about the amount of time Walker has spent out of state campaigning already and he hasn't even announced yet.
True, to a point. I think once a candidate wins the primary for higher office, he/she should have to resign and appoint a replacement for the current office. Not sure if there are any states that require that.
On the other hand, there are probably about 50% of Wisconsonites who would be really proud to have Walker as president.
From an efficiency standpoint, I'd be more concerned that Walker had to win 3 elections in 4 years just to stay in office due to the stupid recall mounted by the unions.
-
Senators and reps, as well as Gov's, etc, should have to resign for anything other than their own office, imo.
-
Sen. Bernie Sanders to launch presidential bid on Thursday
-
Sen. Bernie Sanders to launch presidential bid on Thursday
finally someone to vote for :love:
-
Sen. Bernie Sanders to launch presidential bid on Thursday
The colonel's brother?
-
who are the most moderate candidates so far?
-
Hillary lol
-
who are the most moderate candidates so far?
Jeb and Hillary
-
Carson, Fiorina, and Huckabee have all announced they're running for the GOP nomination
-
Carson, Fiorina, and Huckabee have all announced they're running for the GOP nomination
By which you mean, they're running for the VP slot. Carson and Fiorina would both be great VP candidates.
-
So the Carson guy the libtards hate (probs mostly bc he is black) and call stupid is a rough ridin' neurosurgeon?????
Oh man, libtards gonna libtard
-
i think people call him crazy, not stupid
-
:buh-bye:
i think people call him crazy, not stupid
Libtards are not people, libtard
-
#zapped
-
Wait for it . . . . CRASH°BOOM•RUMBLE
#thundered
-
I think he's a stupid neurosurgeon
-
Christians like Carson.
-
Carson, Fiorina, and Huckabee have all announced they're running for the GOP nomination
By which you mean, they're running for the VP slot. Carson and Fiorina would both be great VP candidates.
LOL, of course. Predictable.
-
Which one of the viable candidates is most likely to drastically reduce the size of the military?
-
viable? none.
non-viable? sanders
-
Carson, Fiorina, and Huckabee have all announced they're running for the GOP nomination
By which you mean, they're running for the VP slot. Carson and Fiorina would both be great VP candidates.
LOL, of course. Predictable.
Neither has any political experience. But you automatically go to race and gender. Predictable.
-
These lite weight wannabe repubers are likr rabbit sex - quick hitting, loud, and spent fast. Jeb on the other hand is ready for a long satisfying romance.
-
:D
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.ibtimes.com%2Fsites%2Fwww.ibtimes.com%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fv2_article_large%2Fpublic%2F2012%2F01%2F27%2F222486-jeb-bush.jpg%3Fitok%3Dw8w89n-n&hash=471c509b613995d30930de6a04035b0abce377ba)
-
Carson, Fiorina, and Huckabee have all announced they're running for the GOP nomination
By which you mean, they're running for the VP slot. Carson and Fiorina would both be great VP candidates.
LOL, of course. Predictable.
Neither has any political experience. But you automatically go to race and gender. Predictable.
I didn't go to race and gender, you did.
-
Carson, Fiorina, and Huckabee have all announced they're running for the GOP nomination
By which you mean, they're running for the VP slot. Carson and Fiorina would both be great VP candidates.
LOL, of course. Predictable.
Neither has any political experience. But you automatically go to race and gender. Predictable.
I didn't go to race and gender, you did.
lol, what a weird response from ksuw :dunno:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.ibtimes.com%2Fsites%2Fwww.ibtimes.com%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fv2_article_large%2Fpublic%2F2012%2F01%2F27%2F222486-jeb-bush.jpg%3Fitok%3Dw8w89n-n&hash=471c509b613995d30930de6a04035b0abce377ba)
ready for a long satisfying romance
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.ibtimes.com%2Fsites%2Fwww.ibtimes.com%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fv2_article_large%2Fpublic%2F2012%2F01%2F27%2F222486-jeb-bush.jpg%3Fitok%3Dw8w89n-n&hash=471c509b613995d30930de6a04035b0abce377ba)
ready for a long satisfying romance
PSH would have portrayed him so masterfully in his presidential biopic :frown:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.ibtimes.com%2Fsites%2Fwww.ibtimes.com%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fv2_article_large%2Fpublic%2F2012%2F01%2F27%2F222486-jeb-bush.jpg%3Fitok%3Dw8w89n-n&hash=471c509b613995d30930de6a04035b0abce377ba)
ready for a long satisfying romance
PSH would have portrayed him so masterfully in his presidential biopic :frown:
Jack Black is a much better actor than he used to be. I think he will surprise you.
-
It's starting to look like George W is the smart son.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheblacksphere.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F03%2FJeb-Bush.jpg&hash=ef67dab0959372615eec31406a8d9ae6379e0f07)
-
isnt anyone more interesting going to run? is this it?
-
https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/herald_bulldog/2015/05/trump_says_jeb_bush_doesnt_want_to_run
-
I saw something on Twitter that quoted Palin as saying she was very interested in a run at 2016 Pres.
I can't imagine a more entertaining turn than that.
-
I saw something on Twitter that quoted Palin as saying she was very interested in a run at 2016 Pres.
I can't imagine a more entertaining turn than that.
She will continue to say that every 4 years to keep her career alive.
-
I saw something on Twitter that quoted Palin as saying she was very interested in a run at 2016 Pres.
I can't imagine a more entertaining turn than that.
She will continue to say that every 4 years to keep her career alive.
Yup, though I wish she'd run. I'm pretty sure the GOP has asked her to sit it out
-
Recent FoxNews poll has Hillary losing to Jeb Bush. Let that sink in for a minute. She still narrowly leads the field of other candidates, but at this early stage I think that is only a matter of name recognition. And the one Republican name most people recognize is Bush, who still beats her.
-
Recent FoxNews poll has Hillary losing to Jeb Bush. Let that sink in for a minute. She still narrowly leads the field of other candidates, but at this early stage I think that is only a matter of name recognition. And the one Republican name most people recognize is Bush, who still beats her.
Jeb is easily the best republican candidate at this point, though.
-
Recent FoxNews poll has Hillary losing to Jeb Bush. Let that sink in for a minute. She still narrowly leads the field of other candidates, but at this early stage I think that is only a matter of name recognition. And the one Republican name most people recognize is Bush, who still beats her.
Jeb is easily the best republican candidate at this point, though.
I disagree. Putting the last name aside, Rubio and Walker are better candidates. Jeb is third.
-
Recent FoxNews poll has Hillary losing to Jeb Bush. Let that sink in for a minute. She still narrowly leads the field of other candidates, but at this early stage I think that is only a matter of name recognition. And the one Republican name most people recognize is Bush, who still beats her.
Jeb is easily the best republican candidate at this point, though.
I disagree. Putting the last name aside, Rubio and Walker are better candidates. Jeb is third.
Rubio talks out his ass too much, I think Walker will be strong
-
Recent FoxNews poll has Hillary losing to Jeb Bush. Let that sink in for a minute. She still narrowly leads the field of other candidates, but at this early stage I think that is only a matter of name recognition. And the one Republican name most people recognize is Bush, who still beats her.
Jeb is easily the best republican candidate at this point, though.
I disagree. Putting the last name aside, Rubio and Walker are better candidates. Jeb is third.
Jeb is the only candidate that has an immigration policy that makes sense.
-
Recent FoxNews poll has Hillary losing to Jeb Bush. Let that sink in for a minute. She still narrowly leads the field of other candidates, but at this early stage I think that is only a matter of name recognition. And the one Republican name most people recognize is Bush, who still beats her.
Jeb is easily the best republican candidate at this point, though.
I disagree. Putting the last name aside, Rubio and Walker are better candidates. Jeb is third.
Jeb is the only candidate that has an immigration policy that makes sense.
Jeb is too fat, he needs to diet
-
Recent FoxNews poll has Hillary losing to Jeb Bush. Let that sink in for a minute. She still narrowly leads the field of other candidates, but at this early stage I think that is only a matter of name recognition. And the one Republican name most people recognize is Bush, who still beats her.
Jeb is easily the best republican candidate at this point, though.
I disagree. Putting the last name aside, Rubio and Walker are better candidates. Jeb is third.
Rubio talks out his ass too much, I think Walker will be strong
Huh - I think Walker has the better resume but Rubio is a much more dynamic speaker. Rubio also has a lot more foreign policy knowledge and experience due to his seat on the foreign relations and select intelligence committees. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/13/rubio-shows-jeb-how-foreign-policy-is-done.html# (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/13/rubio-shows-jeb-how-foreign-policy-is-done.html#)
-
Recent FoxNews poll has Hillary losing to Jeb Bush. Let that sink in for a minute. She still narrowly leads the field of other candidates, but at this early stage I think that is only a matter of name recognition. And the one Republican name most people recognize is Bush, who still beats her.
Jeb is easily the best republican candidate at this point, though.
I disagree. Putting the last name aside, Rubio and Walker are better candidates. Jeb is third.
Jeb is the only candidate that has an immigration policy that makes sense.
Jeb is too fat, he needs to diet
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F9T7Edt89kxw%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&hash=dcf6aab1e3603308efec50d1a412bcb46d720153)
Can't argue with that.
-
Recent FoxNews poll has Hillary losing to Jeb Bush. Let that sink in for a minute. She still narrowly leads the field of other candidates, but at this early stage I think that is only a matter of name recognition. And the one Republican name most people recognize is Bush, who still beats her.
Jeb is easily the best republican candidate at this point, though.
I disagree. Putting the last name aside, Rubio and Walker are better candidates. Jeb is third.
Jeb is the only candidate that has an immigration policy that makes sense.
By which I guess you mean an "open borders" policy, more or less. I don't think that makes sense, for a whole host of reasons. Doesn't "make sense" to me to import poverty into a country with our massive and unsustainable welfare system, and which cannot even produce enough jobs to keep up with population growth. That really doesn't make sense at all.
-
Jeb is the only candidate that has an immigration policy that makes sense.
By which I guess you mean an "open borders" policy, more or less. I don't think that makes sense, for a whole host of reasons. Doesn't "make sense" to me to import poverty into a country with our massive and unsustainable welfare system, and which cannot even produce enough jobs to keep up with population growth. That really doesn't make sense at all.
The welfare system is precisely why we need labor. Good luck getting US citizens to work these jobs. They'd rather picket McDonald's to get $15 per hour than work for $30 per hour. Deporting your work force that actually performs labor just shuts down American-run businesses.
-
Recent FoxNews poll has Hillary losing to Jeb Bush. Let that sink in for a minute. She still narrowly leads the field of other candidates, but at this early stage I think that is only a matter of name recognition. And the one Republican name most people recognize is Bush, who still beats her.
Jeb is easily the best republican candidate at this point, though.
I disagree. Putting the last name aside, Rubio and Walker are better candidates. Jeb is third.
Rubio talks out his ass too much, I think Walker will be strong
Huh - I think Walker has the better resume but Rubio is a much more dynamic speaker. Rubio also has a lot more foreign policy knowledge and experience due to his seat on the foreign relations and select intelligence committees. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/13/rubio-shows-jeb-how-foreign-policy-is-done.html# (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/13/rubio-shows-jeb-how-foreign-policy-is-done.html#)
Rubio's "felons can't vote but they totally have the right to own guns" contradiction shows me he will be sticking his foot in his mouth
-
Jeb is the only candidate that has an immigration policy that makes sense.
By which I guess you mean an "open borders" policy, more or less. I don't think that makes sense, for a whole host of reasons. Doesn't "make sense" to me to import poverty into a country with our massive and unsustainable welfare system, and which cannot even produce enough jobs to keep up with population growth. That really doesn't make sense at all.
The welfare system is precisely why we need labor. Good luck getting US citizens to work these jobs. They'd rather picket McDonald's to get $15 per hour than work for $30 per hour. Deporting your work force that actually performs labor just shuts down American-run businesses.
So we need to import more poor people - who will be on at least some forms of welfare - because the people who are already on welfare won't work these jobs? Seems like a better solution would be re-reform welfare. I don't subscribe to corporate welfare, which is exactly what open borders policy is.
-
Jeb is the only candidate that has an immigration policy that makes sense.
By which I guess you mean an "open borders" policy, more or less. I don't think that makes sense, for a whole host of reasons. Doesn't "make sense" to me to import poverty into a country with our massive and unsustainable welfare system, and which cannot even produce enough jobs to keep up with population growth. That really doesn't make sense at all.
The welfare system is precisely why we need labor. Good luck getting US citizens to work these jobs. They'd rather picket McDonald's to get $15 per hour than work for $30 per hour. Deporting your work force that actually performs labor just shuts down American-run businesses.
So we need to import more poor people - who will be on at least some forms of welfare - because the people who are already on welfare won't work these jobs? Seems like a better solution would be re-reform welfare. I don't subscribe to corporate welfare, which is exactly what open borders policy is.
Well, I prefer the pro-business, pro-economy stance that Jeb Bush has taken.
-
Ok
-
stole from shaggy but made me :D
Funny Jeb story
"Pitbull" (the singer/rapper/whatever the eff he is) was on Stern today.
He talked about meeting Jeb.
Jeb: "How'd you get the name Pitbull"
Pit: "When I was young, I was going to watch a pitbull dogfight in the Dominican Republic and one of my friends said "you remind me of a pitbull...you should change your name to Pitbull"
Jeb: "good thing you didn't go to a cockfight".
-
stole from shaggy but made me :D
Funny Jeb story
"Pitbull" (the singer/rapper/whatever the eff he is) was on Stern today.
He talked about meeting Jeb.
Jeb: "How'd you get the name Pitbull"
Pit: "When I was young, I was going to watch a pitbull dogfight in the Dominican Republic and one of my friends said "you remind me of a pitbull...you should change your name to Pitbull"
Jeb: "good thing you didn't go to a cockfight".
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FI4VoVvq.jpg&hash=f4862145d93045d3404b7aaade53536a38d4a418)
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/george-patakis-moderate-record-makes-him-very-long-shot-gop-n363581
The expanding field of Republican presidential candidates grew by one more Thursday when former New York Governor George Pataki announced his candidacy in New Hampshire. Pataki's entrance is just the latest in an expanding 2016 presidential field with candidates representing a broad range of views within the party.
Would vote for.
-
I'm interested
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/politics/rick-santorum-republican-2016-presidential-race.html?_r=0
Rick Santorum is back.
-
What's the break down look like at this point?
Repubs (within reason):
Walker?
Bush
Cruz
Carson
Huckabee
Jindal?
Rubio
Pataki
Santorum
Dems:
Hillary
Sanders
-
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination is she the biggest failure in the history of politics?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination is she the biggest failure in the history of politics?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If she's only competing against, Sanders... then yes.
-
What's the break down look like at this point?
Repubs (within reason):
Walker?
Bush
Cruz
Carson
Huckabee
Jindal?
Rubio
Pataki
Santorum
Dems:
Hillary
Sanders
The republicans also have Fiorina, Huckabee, and Paul. Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry are likely to run.
Martin O'Malley will probably announce he is running on the dem side.
-
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination is she the biggest failure in the history of politics?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If she's only competing against, Sanders... then yes.
What dem could run that would make it not the biggest failure?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I like Warner, myself.
At this stage in '08 election, I don't think anyone thought Obama would beat out Hillary. I think she has enough baggage that she could be beat easily.
-
Usually, one or two of the candidates nobody has ever heard of will perform well in the debates and become a household name. It's too early to pick winners, though Bush/Clinton sounds most likely at this point.
-
Bush/Clinton seem the least likely to me. Bush will fail miserably in the debates, and Hillary is disliked by the media.
-
I don't think Bush will go far enough right with this many candidates. I've mentioned before, but Clinton won't be able to get any momentum. A Democrat will rise to challenge as some people will always want an alternative. I would take the field over both. If I had to pick now, maybe O'Malley and Walker
-
I don't think Bush will go far enough right with this many candidates. I've mentioned before, but Clinton won't be able to get any momentum. A Democrat will rise to challenge as some people will always want an alternative. I would take the field over both. If I had to pick now, maybe O'Malley and Walker
I think Bush being left of the other candidates works in his favor. There are about 20 candidates against him that will be splitting votes.
-
Is Sanders not seriously being considered?
-
Is Sanders not seriously being considered?
:D
-
Bush/Clinton seem the least likely to me. Bush will fail miserably in the debates, and Hillary is disliked by the media.
the neocons really need to get their story straight on the media loving/hating MG
-
Is Sanders not seriously being considered?
:D
(https://store.berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/BumperSticker_407_3.jpg)
-
I like Warner, myself.
Who is Warner?
-
Bush/Clinton seem the least likely to me. Bush will fail miserably in the debates, and Hillary is disliked by the media.
the neocons really need to get their story straight on the media loving/hating MG
They love Bill, hate MG since 2008.
-
I don't think Bush will go far enough right with this many candidates. I've mentioned before, but Clinton won't be able to get any momentum. A Democrat will rise to challenge as some people will always want an alternative. I would take the field over both. If I had to pick now, maybe O'Malley and Walker
I think Bush being left of the other candidates works in his favor. There are about 20 candidates against him that will be splitting votes.
Yeah, there is no way in hell a tea partier or a candidate with tea party sensibilities will win the primary, the same reason why Bernie Sanders won't. America wants someone who appears to be moderate. There's a reason why we've had 28 years of Bush/Clinton/Obama.
-
After watching General McCrystal on The Daily Show last night, I would greatly prefer voting for someone like that instead of another Clinton/Bush nothingness
-
whats up with this lincoln chafee guy? pretty cool?
his name is lincoln. he was a republican then a independent. and now a dem.
is he cool?
-
whats up with this lincoln chafee guy? pretty cool?
his name is lincoln. he was a republican then a independent. and now a dem.
is he cool?
Followed the money, so not cool.
-
It is likely someone could get less than w0% in each primary and win the nomination with so many running. Jeb or Marco. Nut Jingles from Louisiana should just stay home and play with his wild thing gatorboy.
-
Jeb has an easier path than Clinton. Hillary's opponents are going to get all kinds of air time, while the republicans are left scrambling to see who can even get into the debates.
-
Rick Perry to announce today at 11:30, guise! :Woohoo:
-
Jeb is announcing on June 15 :party:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Jeb has an easier path than Clinton. Hillary's opponents are going to get all kinds of air time, while the republicans are left scrambling to see who can even get into the debates.
I don't think that. Clinton is the only name in her race and Sanders is going to be easily cast as some rapey sex fantasy freak thanks to his editorial from the '70's.
Ppl are dumb and lazy. The ones that mentally have to vote D, will vote for Clinton unless another big name hits the ballot.
-
Another round of Rick Perry, I am excited!
-
Another round of Rick Perry, I am excited!
I have been looking forward to this day for months.
-
goddamnit
-
Another round of Rick Perry, I am excited!
:excited:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/listen-rick-perrys-campaign-song-is-a-country-rap-joint-about-rick-perry/#ooid=g3ZHdodTrzIAIKEuVm7K0rKTV3ZdsUAi (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/listen-rick-perrys-campaign-song-is-a-country-rap-joint-about-rick-perry/#ooid=g3ZHdodTrzIAIKEuVm7K0rKTV3ZdsUAi)
You'll want to crank the volume before listening. Trust.
-
OMG. That is awesome! :love:
-
Haven't clicked yet(at work). Is it like Bullworth? I hope it is. That will be so great.
-
Haven't clicked yet(at work). Is it like Bullworth? I hope it is. That will be so great.
Rick Perry is not rapping, if that's what you mean. His intro music, however, is a rap/country mashup written for/about Rick Perry, though.
-
Rick Perry's identical twin and known dumbass:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com%2Fyourhoustonnews.com%2Fcontent%2Ftncms%2Fassets%2Fv3%2Feditorial%2Fc%2F9b%2Fc9bb6b44-d8ea-11e2-aa0d-001a4bcf887a%2F51c1bd4c826dc.image.jpg&hash=65040ebb166556fd40b00c29ef254f0c6fd4c303)
Rick Perry, brilliant intellectual:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F140227202405-rick-perry-story-top.jpg&hash=2ca4cffed574bfc0ab4bce13795ee1f45cba7b43)
-
It's "Richard Perry" now, after the transition.
-
Jeb has an easier path than Clinton. Hillary's opponents are going to get all kinds of air time, while the republicans are left scrambling to see who can even get into the debates.
I don't think that. Clinton is the only name in her race and Sanders is going to be easily cast as some rapey sex fantasy freak thanks to his editorial from the '70's.
Ppl are dumb and lazy. The ones that mentally have to vote D, will vote for Clinton unless another big name hits the ballot.
Somebody will become a big name simply by running against Hillary. Hillary is not a likable person, and that will help her opponents draw support.
-
It's "Richard Perry" now, after the transition.
Sorry. Richard W. Perry?
-
Dick Perry
-
Breaking news: NYT digs back nearly 20 years, discovers that Marco Rubio has received 4 traffic tickets during that time. :runaway: Should he withdraw?! http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/marco-rubio-and-his-wife-cited-17-times-for-traffic-infractions-2/?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/marco-rubio-and-his-wife-cited-17-times-for-traffic-infractions-2/?_r=0)
I, for one, am not sure I want this menace to public safety in the White House.
In other news, Hillary Clinton has not driven a car in 20 years.
-
Rick Perry has military experience and loves dogs. People will be lining up to vote for him.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fcnn%2F2011%2Fimages%2F08%2F19%2Ft1larg.rick-perry-texas-2shot.t1larg.jpg&hash=997eb66cdb7e6dd82f4063d0000159fb639e1c8d)
-
Look at that dork. Richard definitely got handsomer with age. Do you think that fresh-faced cadet had any idea the wonders that his future would unfurl before him? Dare a youth dream so big?
-
Man, his song has everything. That is absolutely fantastic.
-
Rick Perry has military experience and loves dogs. People will be lining up to vote for him.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.cdn.turner.com%2Fcnn%2F2011%2Fimages%2F08%2F19%2Ft1larg.rick-perry-texas-2shot.t1larg.jpg&hash=997eb66cdb7e6dd82f4063d0000159fb639e1c8d)
Bobby Newport knows that loving dogs is key to winning elections.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqVOo0IM.jpg&hash=9c2974eac0ae5a95b622866a0d4487275d5ad747)
-
On a scale of one to ten how much does it even matter who's president
-
On a scale of one to ten how much does it even matter who's president
4
-
On a scale of one to ten how much does it even matter who's president
5 ish?
From a very cynical view point all they need to be is the proper image for the country. Tall, intimidating, well spoken. (Something say a Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul wouldn't be very good at)
They also need a tertiary understanding of the law. Intelligence doesn't hurt.
It is way more important that we elect a senate and house of reps that know what they are doing.
-
Looks like Rubio is done. NYT has sent an investigative reporter down to Florida to dig up the dirt (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/marco-rubio-and-his-wife-cited-17-times-for-traffic-infractions-2/?_r=0) on him and his wife,
-
teach me how to lukie
-
lol
-
teach me how to lukie
I was busy at work today :whistle1:
-
teach me how to lukie
Nice
-
Best campaign money launderer wins, so it pretty much looks like this right now, Secretariat is Hillary
https://youtu.be/V18ui3Rtjz4?t=1m36s
-
'bias, mind sharing that jelly burrito with dax?
-
Rubio is best looking, that means he wins right?
-
Wut was that ClostedRushLimbaugh?
-
I wish these Bush gnats would fly away and die. We don't need a good looking smooth special class of person for President. We need someone with value and ideas. Someone who is willing to get into a nut kicking fight with Putin, willing to ram chopsticks up the Chinese noses, and scare the hell out of Isis and Kim Me Dung.
-
I wish these Bush gnats would fly away and die. We don't need a good looking smooth special class of person for President. We need someone with value and ideas. Someone who is willing to get into a nut kicking fight with Putin, willing to ram chopsticks up the Chinese noses, and scare the hell out of Isis and Kim Me Dung.
So you don't like Rubio?
-
Rubio is a close second, but the Bushman's record as Florida governor proves he has the chops to.be President. I WANT SOMEONE WITH EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE unlike #*@+!!! And €¥#@$##.
-
Looks like Rubio is done. NYT has sent an investigative reporter down to Florida to dig up the dirt (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/marco-rubio-and-his-wife-cited-17-times-for-traffic-infractions-2/?_r=0) on him and his wife,
How in the world is that news? In no way does that effect his ability to govern and, to be fair, as president he wouldn't be the one driving.
Rubio's height on the other hand. . .not quite presidential IMO.
-
Rubio is a close second, but the Bushman's record as Florida governor proves he has the chops to.be President. I WANT SOMEONE WITH EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE unlike #*@+!!! And €¥#@$##.
Americans are so stupid, they will only vote for the best looking. it is a beauty contest.
-
Looks like Rubio is done. NYT has sent an investigative reporter down to Florida to dig up the dirt (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/marco-rubio-and-his-wife-cited-17-times-for-traffic-infractions-2/?_r=0) on him and his wife,
How in the world is that news? In no way does that effect his ability to govern and, to be fair, as president he wouldn't be the one driving.
Rubio's height on the other hand. . .not quite presidential IMO.
It's an amazing hit piece on so many different levels. For one, it appears to have been fed to the NYT by "American Bridge" - a Democrat oppo research firm - but the NYT didn't report that.
Second, I guess getting 4 tickets over a span of 19 years just wasn't bad enough (that's actually pretty good, right?), so the article combined Rubio's record with his wife's to get to 17. The twitterverse has had a lot of fun concocting fake headlines of a similar vein. My favorites so far are "Together, Rubio and Napoleon Conquered Most of Europe" and "Together, Rubio and Columbia Produce Most of the World's Cocaine". I would maybe add, "Together, Rubio and Ted Kennedy Once Drowned a Girl While Drunk Driving".
Third, has the NYT's preferred candidate even driven a car in the past two decades years?
-
The obsession with Hilary not driving is weird. Why does it matter?
-
The obsession with Hilary not driving is weird. Why does it matter?
its like the womans version of bowing to the saudi king
-
I was surprised Rubio drives. I didn't think any senators ever drive their own vehicles.
-
Looks like Rubio is done. NYT has sent an investigative reporter down to Florida to dig up the dirt (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/marco-rubio-and-his-wife-cited-17-times-for-traffic-infractions-2/?_r=0) on him and his wife,
How in the world is that news? In no way does that effect his ability to govern and, to be fair, as president he wouldn't be the one driving.
Rubio's height on the other hand. . .not quite presidential IMO.
It's an amazing hit piece on so many different levels. For one, it appears to have been fed to the NYT by "American Bridge" - a Democrat oppo research firm - but the NYT didn't report that.
Second, I guess getting 4 tickets over a span of 19 years just wasn't bad enough (that's actually pretty good, right?), so the article combined Rubio's record with his wife's to get to 17. The twitterverse has had a lot of fun concocting fake headlines of a similar vein. My favorites so far are "Together, Rubio and Napoleon Conquered Most of Europe" and "Together, Rubio and Columbia Produce Most of the World's Cocaine". I would maybe add, "Together, Rubio and Ted Kennedy Once Drowned a Girl While Drunk Driving".
Third, has the NYT's preferred candidate even driven a car in the past two decades years?
I had not yet seen all of those. Provided a good laugh.
I am intrigued by the attempt from both sides to defame the other using such abnormally obscure and unimportant details. If speeding tickets are the worst they can find on ol' Rubio then maybe he will have a good run at it next year.
-
:lol: at the butthurt with the rubio deal
Literally no one cares, but ksuw types think it's some huge deal that rubio needs defending on
-
If we were using a boxing metaphor for the politics of Presidential candidacy, this isn't a haymaker, or body blow, or even a jab. This is a blowing-in-someone's-ear-while-grappling move.
-
The obsession with Hilary not driving is weird. Why does it matter?
its like the womans version of bowing to the saudi king
Yeah, it's just disingenuous to criticize Hillary for using a chauffeur, when she's so open and honest about being a middle class regular person who cares only about the little guy.
-
:lol: at the butthurt with the rubio deal
Literally no one cares, but ksuw types think it's some huge deal that rubio needs defending on
It's funny. I'm not sure if it was meant to be satire or not, but the NYT "investigative reporter" did a great job either way.
-
If anything, it makes him more accessible. We all drink water and we all get tickets.
-
The obsession with Hilary not driving is weird. Why does it matter?
its like the womans version of bowing to the saudi king
Yeah, it's just disingenuous to criticize Hillary for using a chauffeur, when she's so open and honest about being a middle class regular person who cares only about the little guy.
I mean, if other former First Ladies and Secretaries of State were always driving their Buick down to the beauty shop it would be one thing, but since they effectively aren't allowed to drive, this is a total nothing issue. Also good news for Mr. and Mrs. Rubio if they win... no more tickets.
-
:lol: at the butthurt with the rubio deal
Literally no one cares, but ksuw types think it's some huge deal that rubio needs defending on
Enjoy this type of response. Start with ridiculous attack, then mock the people mocking the attack for feeling the need to mock the attack. Saul A. would approve! :thumbs:
-
The obsession with Hilary not driving is weird. Why does it matter?
As I said, it's just funny that the NYT is attacking Rubio for having a perfectly normal driving record - when the Dems' favored candidate hasn't even driven a car in the past few decades.
-
:lol: at the butthurt with the rubio deal
Literally no one cares, but ksuw types think it's some huge deal that rubio needs defending on
Enjoy this type of response. Start with ridiculous attack, then mock the people mocking the attack for feeling the need to mock the attack. Saul A. would approve! :thumbs:
He didn't make the attack or even bring it up, though.
-
:lol: at the butthurt with the rubio deal
Literally no one cares, but ksuw types think it's some huge deal that rubio needs defending on
Enjoy this type of response. Start with ridiculous attack, then mock the people mocking the attack for feeling the need to mock the attack. Saul A. would approve! :thumbs:
He didn't make the attack or even bring it up, though.
Fair point, I guess, but I consider seven to just be part of the libtard hive mind.
-
Good christ, if this is the GOP strategy. I may finally vote independent
-
MS MG Clinton would take road rage to a whole new level.
-
How worried are the Dems about Rubio? Very worried. They're dumping a lot of oppo research on him really early.
See latest attack today in the NYT - Marco Rubio's Not Rich!!! :runaway:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-finances-debt-loans-credit.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-finances-debt-loans-credit.html?_r=0)
Again, contrasting this with the Dems' favored candidate is just amazing. Makes Rubio look positively normal.
-
the plight of the HINRY
-
the plight of the HINRY
Does Rubio ride in coach?
-
the plight of the HINRY
Does Rubio ride in coach?
Probably Coach Plus or whatever that category is that the paper chided Sam Brownback for using.
-
Why would the NYT publish such a stupid article of misinformation? ???
-
Why would you want regular guy to be president? I'd prefer someone better than me
-
Why would you want regular guy to be president? I'd prefer someone better than me
Don't worry, Rubio is still better than you.
-
I hope so
-
Why would the NYT publish such a stupid article of misinformation? ???
to spark outrage among internet rubes
-
Why would you want regular guy to be president? I'd prefer someone better than me
Don't worry, Rubio is still better than you.
Seems unlikely.
-
Squawkstin looks like he may be running.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHFyNu0WwAI1Y0h.jpg:large)
-
would vote (for)
-
Chris Christie is awful (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/chris-christie-new-hampshire-china).
Christie called for a "military approach" to China's advances to "let them know there are limits to what they're allowed to do."
"That is an issue that we can handle militarily by going out there and making sure that we show them that we don't respect their claims to these artificial islands in the South China Sea that they're building that they're saying are theirs that are hundreds and hundreds of miles from the coast of China and are clearly in international waters," Christie said adding: "We need to send that signal to the Chinese very clearly that we do not acknowledge nor will we respect their claims to those areas."
The U.S. military has begun actively — and more publicly — challenging China's sovereignty claims over the half a dozen artificial islands Beijing has been rapidly constructing. The U.S. refuses to recognize China's sovereignty over disputed islands and Defense Secretary Ash Carter recently said the U.S. would continue to enforce freedom of navigation in what it considers international waters.
Christie also criticized this country's approach to education, suggesting that textbooks should be replaced by iPads. He is scheduled to deliver a major speech on the topic in Iowa on Thursday.
-
Being a leader of china must be pretty badass. Building islands just for the eff of it
-
Being a leader of china must be pretty badass. Building islands just for the eff of it
I don't think China does anything for the eff of it.
-
Being a leader of china must be pretty badass. Building islands just for the eff of it
I don't think China does anything for the eff of it.
"hey, i think we should build entire cities and then just leave them vacant"
:bigtoke:
"that would be awesome"
:bong:
-
"we should start building islands like way out away from our country"
"brooooooooooooooooooo"
:Cheers:
-
Chris Christie is awful (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/chris-christie-new-hampshire-china).
Christie called for a "military approach" to China's advances to "let them know there are limits to what they're allowed to do."
"That is an issue that we can handle militarily by going out there and making sure that we show them that we don't respect their claims to these artificial islands in the South China Sea that they're building that they're saying are theirs that are hundreds and hundreds of miles from the coast of China and are clearly in international waters," Christie said adding: "We need to send that signal to the Chinese very clearly that we do not acknowledge nor will we respect their claims to those areas."
The U.S. military has begun actively — and more publicly — challenging China's sovereignty claims over the half a dozen artificial islands Beijing has been rapidly constructing. The U.S. refuses to recognize China's sovereignty over disputed islands and Defense Secretary Ash Carter recently said the U.S. would continue to enforce freedom of navigation in what it considers international waters.
Christie also criticized this country's approach to education, suggesting that textbooks should be replaced by iPads. He is scheduled to deliver a major speech on the topic in Iowa on Thursday.
You are a moron
-
Helen Roser nails it imo
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F06%2F10%2F4a8d89e5d43f5ad3efceea50111558a1.jpg&hash=50239c31976ee81f467e033ce70d62a0ebd33a68)
-
Chris Christie is awful (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/chris-christie-new-hampshire-china).
Christie called for a "military approach" to China's advances to "let them know there are limits to what they're allowed to do."
"That is an issue that we can handle militarily by going out there and making sure that we show them that we don't respect their claims to these artificial islands in the South China Sea that they're building that they're saying are theirs that are hundreds and hundreds of miles from the coast of China and are clearly in international waters," Christie said adding: "We need to send that signal to the Chinese very clearly that we do not acknowledge nor will we respect their claims to those areas."
The U.S. military has begun actively — and more publicly — challenging China's sovereignty claims over the half a dozen artificial islands Beijing has been rapidly constructing. The U.S. refuses to recognize China's sovereignty over disputed islands and Defense Secretary Ash Carter recently said the U.S. would continue to enforce freedom of navigation in what it considers international waters.
Christie also criticized this country's approach to education, suggesting that textbooks should be replaced by iPads. He is scheduled to deliver a major speech on the topic in Iowa on Thursday.
You are a moron
iPads in schools seem like a waste of money to me.
-
Christie is waaaaay too fat. The incredibly stupid american voter would never elect him
-
"we should start building islands like way out away from our country"
"brooooooooooooooooooo"
:Cheers:
Dude, they are attempting to expand their international boarders out into the ocean and by building military bases on artificial islands.
-
"we should start building islands like way out away from our country"
"brooooooooooooooooooo"
:Cheers:
Dude, they are attempting to expand their international boarders out into the ocean and by building military bases on artificial islands.
The joke is on them, though. Those islands will be underwater in a few short decades after the earth warms up a couple of degrees.
-
Helen Roser nails it imo
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F06%2F10%2F4a8d89e5d43f5ad3efceea50111558a1.jpg&hash=50239c31976ee81f467e033ce70d62a0ebd33a68)
wow they post addresses w/ letters to the editor? props to the merc for posting that letter though. Man.
-
damn maybe i should be reading these free mercurys
-
That lady is quite insane
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
Who's the queen? That part was confusing to me.
-
Who's the queen? That part was confusing to me.
Rubio
-
Guys, I think the queen might be us. Think about it.
-
The Queen was Elizabeth. She said she was in England.
-
We are the crowd. Otherwise the Pubs would be bugging the Queen. Then again, maybe the crowd is big business and donors, and we are the queen. That would make sense, I guess, given that they are ignoring her.
-
Queen = Your Royal Highendness Hillary. The stud pubs are Jeb, Rubio, and Kasich. The rest are the chickens. The really stupid chickens are Cruz, Perry, and Fats Christie. This gal must of got some bad hooch. Is she a liberal from Lawrence?
-
Commissioner Sherow encouraged public participation in the upcoming elections and cited a letter received by resident Helen Roser voicing her concerns regarding The Manhattan Mercury’s policy of charging for candidate support letters to the editor during the election season.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2015%2F06%2FRAMclr-061115-speedboat-IBD-COLOR-FINAL.jpg.cms_.jpeg&hash=3778b8d40692cd67bd08abf50cb926cb5952a2b1)
-
Wrong thread
-
there are over a billion repub candidates for this thing. it's got to be the bush and rubio show though, right?
-
there are over a billion repub candidates for this thing. it's got to be the bush and rubio show though, right?
There will be one or two crazies that stick around and get Tea Party support, too.
-
Damn tea party fanatics are liable to screw up our chances. I would not be surprised they gof 3rd party for an Amurican crusade.
-
Damn tea party fanatics are liable to screw up our chances. I would not be surprised they gof 3rd party for an Amurican crusade.
Well a 3rd party candidate is the only way a Clinton can beat a Bush.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We need a third party but not that third party. We need a moderate third party.
-
there are over a billion repub candidates for this thing. it's got to be the bush and rubio show though, right?
I think the "real candidates" are Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Rand Paul. All the other candidates don't really have any good reason to be running IMO.
-
We need a third party but not that third party. We need a moderate third party.
Make the Tea Party the third party, and the Republicans become the moderate party.
-
I'm intrigued by this idea of a Moderate Party. What is its position on deficit spending? Only $600 billion as opposed to $1 trillion? How about immigration? How about healthcare?
-
We should probably add two moderate parties so that they could actually work together and negotiate. Just adding one party would probably just add more noise to the room.
-
I'm intrigued by this idea of a Moderate Party. What is its position on deficit spending? Only $600 billion as opposed to $1 trillion? How about immigration? How about healthcare?
Deficit spending is ok. Beats the alternative. $1 trillion is too much.
Anyone who can find work in the US can get a work visa and come legally.
Healthcare needs fixed. Obamacare isn't fixing it. We need to either address the things that are driving costs, or go to single payer.
-
Less defense spending. More NASA spending.
-
I'm intrigued by this idea of a Moderate Party. What is its position on deficit spending? Only $600 billion as opposed to $1 trillion? How about immigration? How about healthcare?
Deficit spending is ok. Beats the alternative. $1 trillion is too much.
Anyone who can find work in the US can get a work visa and come legally.
Healthcare needs fixed. Obamacare isn't fixing it. We need to either address the things that are driving costs, or go to single payer.
Huh. That sounds pretty liberal. No thanks.
-
I'm intrigued by this idea of a Moderate Party. What is its position on deficit spending? Only $600 billion as opposed to $1 trillion? How about immigration? How about healthcare?
Deficit spending is ok. Beats the alternative. $1 trillion is too much.
Anyone who can find work in the US can get a work visa and come legally.
Healthcare needs fixed. Obamacare isn't fixing it. We need to either address the things that are driving costs, or go to single payer.
Huh. That sounds pretty liberal. No thanks.
did you read my thread about science proving that the right is further from center than any time in history?
-
I'm intrigued by this idea of a Moderate Party. What is its position on deficit spending? Only $600 billion as opposed to $1 trillion? How about immigration? How about healthcare?
Deficit spending is ok. Beats the alternative. $1 trillion is too much.
Anyone who can find work in the US can get a work visa and come legally.
Healthcare needs fixed. Obamacare isn't fixing it. We need to either address the things that are driving costs, or go to single payer.
Huh. That sounds pretty liberal. No thanks.
Yeah, you would have the third party nut job you could vote for.
-
You don't have to be a teapot to be conservative. Tea party fanatics are like a pack of rabid in heat dogs on a week long orgy. They are either biting each other or screwing each other. They all howl at the same time.
-
Jeb coming out swinging
-
It's too early to pay attention to any of this crap. :zzz:
-
(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/t31.0-8/11406315_10153364164231336_4607200505414539402_o.png)
-
I don't know how some of these republican candidates even think they will get on stage at a debate which I believe is limited to 10 candidates. Trump needs to stop surrounding himself by yes men that tell him this is a good idea.
-
At some point, you have to think that he is a little insane. I mean, ego only goes so far.
-
At some point, you have to think that he is a little insane. I mean, ego only goes so far.
It's not like that. Trump doesn't want to run, per se. But, he simply cannot ignore the deafening cries from the masses who demand that he be their President.
But seriously, the thought that he is actually trying to become President has never entered my mind. Isn't this just a gimmick for a bunch of free publicity? Donald Trump is a brand, and he wants his name repeated as many hundreds of millions of times as he can get.
-
At some point, you have to think that he is a little insane. I mean, ego only goes so far.
It's not like that. Trump doesn't want to run, per se. But, he simply cannot ignore the deafening cries from the masses who demand that he be their President.
But seriously, the thought that he is actually trying to become President has never entered my mind. Isn't this just a gimmick for a bunch of free publicity? Donald Trump is a brand, and he wants his name repeated as many hundreds of millions of times as he can get.
Yes, this is correct.
-
Donald Trump is the Don King of politics.
-
Donald Trump is the Don King of politics.
This the quip about the Donald I have seen. King had a big impact on boxing. Trump Wil cause havoc. I would not be surprised if the rabid slobbering tea frothers rallied around him. He has an ego to go third party. Bush Sr and Perot again. I would vote for him before Hillary or Possom.
-
Old Swift Perry called the Charleston shooting an accident.
-
Old Swift Perry called the Charleston shooting an accident.
:facepalm:
-
Looks like Republicans have another hopeful.
http://www.bobbyjindal.com/
http://news.yahoo.com/louisiana-governor-jindal-announces-run-president-2016-170727626.html;_ylt=A0LEV1VtA4xVDeoAlJ1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEydXAxYWw1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjAyNDVfMQRzZWMDc2M-
-
is jindal cool or not? i do know that he has been pretending to be a creationist to pander to his constituents. pretty shrewd.
-
is jindal cool or not? i do know that he has been pretending to be a creationist to pander to his constituents. pretty shrewd.
He's a Southern version of Sam Brownback.
-
hmm
-
Who's going to be running against Hilary?
-
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/22/8815729/bobby-jindal-sam-brownback-tax-increases
-
is jindal cool or not? i do know that he has been pretending to be a creationist to pander to his constituents. pretty shrewd.
He's a Southern version of Sam Brownback.
maybe brownbacks plan would have worked awesome on a national level because you can deficit spend and keep writing checks to fund schools and build roads even with no revenue
-
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/22/8815729/bobby-jindal-sam-brownback-tax-increases
Vox and their rough ridin' commas before, explained.
-
http://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/jindal-portrait#.fv7eG84eG
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fak-hdl.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2015-02%2F3%2F19%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr10%2Fgrid-cell-11460-1423008477-16.jpg&hash=152233145bf12a1e8de78fae877a60a1fa454619)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fak-hdl.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2015-02%2F3%2F19%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr10%2Fgrid-cell-11460-1423008477-19.jpg&hash=a153d9e6198ff10b3b3aa2ddf842feb6304db8b2)
:lol:
-
http://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/jindal-portrait#.fv7eG84eG
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fak-hdl.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2015-02%2F3%2F19%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr10%2Fgrid-cell-11460-1423008477-16.jpg&hash=152233145bf12a1e8de78fae877a60a1fa454619)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fak-hdl.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2015-02%2F3%2F19%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr10%2Fgrid-cell-11460-1423008477-19.jpg&hash=a153d9e6198ff10b3b3aa2ddf842feb6304db8b2)
:lol:
holy crap did you see what his chief of staff tweeted later?
https://twitter.com/kjplotkin/status/562763969543544832
:lol:
-
Yeah, the white guy in the second portrait is a little bit more tan. The first portrait did a much better job of capturing his 5 o'clock shadow, though.
-
Made me think of this.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flarrybrownsports.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2FESPN-White-Michael-Vick.jpg&hash=e17301f33e8eb2cb59ee6edb191a4ad841501935)
-
The Round Profound Mound Chris Christy said he is going to a belly flopper into the Presidential pool. Wearing his Obama Duckies life vest he will give a self-effaced blowhard speech. He be a big turd clogging the plumbing.
-
He said all that?
-
i heard ted cruz wants to throw the constitution in the trash and piss on the founding fathers' graves by making the supreme court an electable office.
-
i heard ted cruz wants to throw the constitution in the trash and piss on the founding fathers' graves by making the supreme court an electable office.
He will never find the votes for that amendment. This is just a hollow issue to attract stupid voters. That's probably the best strategy he can use, though.
-
its just fun for me that he can claim to be a strict constitutionalist while also demanding one of the most basic parts of the constitution be changed
-
Cruz should wait before vilifying the court too much. I mean, they just struck down EPA limits on certain pollutants/pollution control by oil and coal power plants. Cruz should be :dubious: then :Woohoo: this last few days.
Sure gay ppl can get married, but why does that matter if they are just going to eventually die of mercury poisoning?
-
Cruz should wait before vilifying the court too much. I mean, they just struck down EPA limits on certain pollutants/pollution control by oil and coal power plants. Cruz should be :dubious: then :Woohoo: this last few days.
Sure gay ppl can get married, but why does that matter if they are just going to eventually die of mercury poisoning?
Most republicans care more about social issues than the economy. Cruz definitely falls into this category.
-
Cruz should wait before vilifying the court too much. I mean, they just struck down EPA limits on certain pollutants/pollution control by oil and coal power plants. Cruz should be :dubious: then :Woohoo: this last few days.
Sure gay ppl can get married, but why does that matter if they are just going to eventually die of mercury poisoning?
Most republicans care more about social issues than the economy. Cruz definitely falls into this category.
What makes you say that? I feel like millennial conservatives are more liberal when it comes to social issues but staunchly to the right when it comes to economic issues.
-
Ksuw and fsd are def social issue republicans
-
Cruz should wait before vilifying the court too much. I mean, they just struck down EPA limits on certain pollutants/pollution control by oil and coal power plants. Cruz should be :dubious: then :Woohoo: this last few days.
Sure gay ppl can get married, but why does that matter if they are just going to eventually die of mercury poisoning?
Most republicans care more about social issues than the economy. Cruz definitely falls into this category.
What makes you say that? I feel like millennial conservatives are more liberal when it comes to social issues but staunchly to the right when it comes to economic issues.
Facebook feeds, fox news, presidential debates, ad campaigns, talk radio, the official party platform, etc.
-
millenial conservatives are only socially liberal about weed now that gay marriage isn't a thing to care about
-
its just fun for me that he can claim to be a strict constitutionalist while also demanding one of the most basic parts of the constitution be changed
I almost wrecked my car laughing at 6 am this morning while driving to work when I heard his interview.
-
Somebody named Jim Webb just announced. Other than having a resemblance to Bradley Whitford, I have no idea what he offers. The GOP field is like a clown car of mostly unelectable losers.
-
Somebody named Jim Webb just announced. Other than having a resemblance to Bradley Whitford, I have no idea what he offers. The GOP field is like a clown car of mostly unelectable losers.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/jim-webb-2016-president-announcement/index.html
not GOP
-
Somebody named Jim Webb just announced. Other than having a resemblance to Bradley Whitford, I have no idea what he offers. The GOP field is like a clown car of mostly unelectable losers.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/jim-webb-2016-president-announcement/index.html
not GOP
Haha my bad for some reason the affiliation of longtime senator John Warner popped into my head when I saw he was a Senator from Virginia. Although my description of the GOP field is still accurate..........
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/jim-gilmore-enters-2016-race/index.html
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/politics/scott-walker-2016-presidential-announcement/index.html
-
Pretty sure Marco Rubio is staying at my hotel tonight.
-
Shake his hand
-
Shake his hand
I was at about a 4 when I think I saw him walk by.I was hoping he would come to the bar. I'm in Colo. Springs. A guy who looked like a staffer came to the bar and asked a question or two about 10 min later. He was carrying an Outback To Go bag. Asked him a question and he gave me a :dubious:
-
I like rubio, seems like a sane guy with misplaced views
-
His hair is considerably more thin irl than on tv.
-
The first debate is in 2 weeks. This is going to be must-see television.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/21/upshot/election-2015-the-first-gop-debate-and-the-role-of-chance.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
:popcorn: :bwpopcorn:
-
how can they accomplish anything but hilarity with ten mofos on stage?
-
how can they accomplish anything but hilarity with ten mofos on stage?
If they round the polls to the nearest whole number and the debates were today, they'd have a 3 way tie for 10th at 2%. That would put 12 on the stage. Fox hasn't said how many decimals they are using, but they have said they'll include more than 10 in the event of a tie.
-
The man to watch is Ben Carson, imo. He's a relative unknown in the field, and is polling pretty well.
-
Oh, and
Rounding to fewer decimal places could be welcome news for candidates on the cusp like Mr. Santorum (who has already called the debate rules “a miscarriage”),
I hope they find a way to put Santorum in this thing.
-
Oh, and
Rounding to fewer decimal places could be welcome news for candidates on the cusp like Mr. Santorum (who has already called the debate rules “a miscarriage”),
I hope they find a way to put Santorum in this thing.
Surprised he didn't call it an abortion.
-
santorum is running? crap, feel bad for him.
-
Oh, and
Rounding to fewer decimal places could be welcome news for candidates on the cusp like Mr. Santorum (who has already called the debate rules “a miscarriage”),
I hope they find a way to put Santorum in this thing.
Surprised he didn't call it an abortion.
He doesn't use that word lightly.
-
santorum butter - nikki minaj
-
santorum butter - nikki minaj
santorum is running? crap, feel bad for him.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWEXD200.png&hash=710181064cc37421c44c47921dff6161290ef8df)
-
what other x rated butters can you guys name?
-
Don't we have a thread for 'Pubs when they drop?
Some guy named Jindal should be added to that list.
-
RIP CC Burrito slayer
-
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/466211158/carly-fiorina-ends-bid-for-republican-presidential-nomination
Goodbye Carly, we hardly knew yeeeeeeee
-
Goodbye, officially, Ben
-
:horrorsurprise:
-
Any truth to the rumblings that the pubs are trying to get Condie to run as an independent?
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.am%2Finstances%2F500x%2F55406073.jpg&hash=4b9505efe3923edc3faf24fcec76335f13807272)