correct me if Im wrong...

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Shoot Straight
Member
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:28 pm

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by Shoot Straight »

RoyGBiv wrote:It is not possible for you and I to have a more opposite opinion here... :headscratch

We need to STOP SPENDING money we don't have. The notion that "we're just spending money that Congress has already authorized" doesn't hold even a micro-liter of water with me. That spending (in excess of revenue) should never have been authorized, so, I loose no sleep over reversing course. The spending must be reined in immediately. The short term pain will be nothing compared to spending as usual.

I bet the markets (if that's any concern) will react positively to us getting spending under control. Unless, that is, Obama just throws up his hands and says "I told you so", which is entirely possible. A leader would see this for the opportunity that it is to get our financial house in order. A Democrat who is any kind of leader will see this as a free pass to cut spending and not carry any of the blame for having to do so. Obama, if he was a leader, could easily make the hard cuts and when people complained about it he could say "this is the money I am left to spend, blame it on the Congress"...... Talk about a winning situation for him.
:iagree:

Every penny of deficit spending hurts.

Image
Ride
Shoot Straight
Speak the Truth
User avatar
Blindref757
Senior Member
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 6:40 pm
Location: Denton

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by Blindref757 »

I'm astounded that someone is blaming Boehner of moving the goal post! The house republicans have been totally consistent in stating that new revenues were out of the question. Obama and Obama alone was the one killing negotiations by insisting that a tax increase be included in the package. He refused to back down until Harry Reid explained to him that there were 23 senators facing re-election and they could not go home and get reelected on a tax increase. (O-crybaby can't get reelected on a tax increase either, but hes too arrogant to know that.) Obama listened to Reid and went in front of the camera and blamed Boehner for moving the goal post. Obama has been everything but Presidential in this whole process. He is without question...the worst president in since 1776.
boba

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by boba »

We're drowning in debt. It would violate my duty as a citizen to vote for any politician, Democrat or Republican or Independent, who votes for more debt. :patriot:
User avatar
The Mad Moderate
Senior Member
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:31 am
Location: Marble Falls

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by The Mad Moderate »

boba wrote:We're drowning in debt. It would violate my duty as a citizen to vote for any politician, Democrat or Republican or Independent, who votes for more debt. :patriot:
It would violate the Constitution if they don't, and not to mention the catastrophic consequences of defaulting on our debt.
American by birth Texan by the grace of God

Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
-Francois Guisot
User avatar
74novaman
Senior Member
Posts: 3798
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:36 am
Location: CenTex

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by 74novaman »

loadedliberal wrote:
boba wrote:We're drowning in debt. It would violate my duty as a citizen to vote for any politician, Democrat or Republican or Independent, who votes for more debt. :patriot:
It would violate the Constitution if they don't, and not to mention the catastrophic consequences of defaulting on our debt.
LL, check my response on page 2 to your assertion that the lower taxes=hiring has been busted.
TANSTAAFL
boba

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by boba »

loadedliberal wrote:
boba wrote:We're drowning in debt. It would violate my duty as a citizen to vote for any politician, Democrat or Republican or Independent, who votes for more debt. :patriot:
It would violate the Constitution if they don't, and not to mention the catastrophic consequences of defaulting on our debt.
If they cut spending to what's allowed in the Constitution, there would be no additional debt and no default. So appealing to their duty to the Constitution means they should cut spending, not spend more on unconstitutional waste so they can increase the debt.
User avatar
BigPa
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:53 pm
Location: N. Texas
Contact:

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by BigPa »

The Constitution means nothing to ANY of these clowns any more.
http://www.rockinbsleatherworks.info/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 26884
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Senator Marco Rubio schools Senator Kerry on the Senate Floor yesterday:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=-fsG4jLBmrs[/youtube]

His closing statement:
I believe my time is about to expire, so let me close with this: compromise is fantastic! .....I would love to compromise, but I would say to you that compromise that is not a solution is a waste of time. If my house were on fire, I can't compromise about which part of the house I'm going to save! You save the whole house! Or it will ALL burn down! We either save this country, or we do not. And to save it, we must seek solutions.
I'd vote for that guy if he ever runs for president.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar
Blindref757
Senior Member
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 6:40 pm
Location: Denton

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by Blindref757 »

People like Marco Rubio are what truly give me hope about the future. I think he will be President someday...if there is still a Republic when he gets there is yet to be seen.
User avatar
RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts: 9597
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by RoyGBiv »

Blindref757 wrote: Obama has been everything but Presidential in this whole process. He is without question...the worst president in since 1976.
Just changed one digit...

Image
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
User avatar
Blindref757
Senior Member
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 6:40 pm
Location: Denton

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by Blindref757 »

A friend of mine told me that you have to endure a Jimmy Carter (insert BHO) to appreciate a Ronald Reagan (insert Marco Rubio)!
User avatar
74novaman
Senior Member
Posts: 3798
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:36 am
Location: CenTex

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by 74novaman »

Blindref757 wrote:A friend of mine told me that you have to endure a Jimmy Carter (insert BHO) to appreciate a Ronald Reagan (insert Marco Rubio)!
Then he needs to get into the race.

We only had to endure Carter for 4 years. I shudder to think of another 4 years of BHO in office.
TANSTAAFL
User avatar
Excaliber
Moderator
Posts: 6199
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: DFW Metro

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by Excaliber »

BigPa wrote:The Constitution means nothing to ANY of these clowns any more.
It would appear that they see it only as an obstacle to be overcome, their meaningless oaths of office notwithstanding.
Excaliber

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.
User avatar
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 26884
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Blindref757 wrote:A friend of mine told me that you have to endure a Jimmy Carter (insert BHO) to appreciate a Ronald Reagan (insert Marco Rubio)!
Ronald Reagan wrote:"Can anyone look at the record of this administration and say, 'Well done'? Can anyone compare the state of our economy when [this] administration took office with where we are today and say, 'Keep up the good work'? Can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, 'Let's have four more years of this'?" --Ronald Reagan, presidential nomination acceptance speech given on July 17, 1980 at the RNC
I keep saying, this is EXACTLY the moment to ask the question that Reagan asked back then and throughout his campaign: "Are you better off today than you were before?"

The answer is a resounding "NO!" I would be very surprised if Obama gets elected again. All it needs is for a strong conservative to come forward and accept the Republican call. When I first watched that Marco Rubio video that I posted above, it reminded me of the first time I ever saw him speak during his senate campaign. I was bowled over by his passion and his clarity of thought. There was NO dissembling there. Back then, I thought "if this guy runs for president, he'll get my vote."

He won't run now, because unlike Obama, he's a respecter of the commitment he made to the people of Florida to represent their interests in the Senate. But even if he did run today, his relative inexperience would not be a detraction, given that the "loyal opposition" put that argument to rest back in 2008. I would LOVE to throw that back in an Obama supporter's face if given the chance. Why? Because they either have to agree that there's nothing wrong with Rubio's relative lack of experience, or they have to admit that they were wrong about Obama's lack of experience. If they agree that experience is unimportant, then that's one less stone they could throw at a Rubio candidacy. If they admit that they were wrong, then they have to either, in good conscience vote for anybody besides Obama, or they have to admit that they are not people of good conscience.

When a "generic" republican can beat Obama in a poll, he's got a problem. Whenever the republican party sorts itself out and nominates its candidate, it isn't going to take much to defeat Obama. He can't run on his record. His record SUCKS. Deep down inside, even he knows it sucks. He can't run on promises, because A) his promises are worthless, and B) they are bad for the country and nearly everybody knows it. Politically, he's a goner.

If Marco Rubio can hold onto his seat for a second term, that will give him until 2020 to mount a presidential run. If a republican can take the presidency in 2012 and hold it in 2016, we're in good shape. Rubio would make a great president. He states his conservatism clearly, passionately, and unapologetically. He makes sense. OTH, if Obama succeeds in holding onto his office in 2012 (I don't think he will.... but if he does), it is almost guaranteed that his successor will be a republican. By then, Rubio would be 2 years into his second term, and things will likely be so bad that his constituents would likely forgive his running for president in the middle of a term.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 26884
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: correct me if Im wrong...

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Here's some interesting info.......

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/michael-b ... ican-fold/
....in his second term, Bush proved toxic to the Republican label. The Pew Research Center showed Democrats with a 51 percent to 39 percent party identification edge over Republicans in its 2008 polls.

Now Pew Research has come out with figures for 2011. They're not good news for Barack Obama and the Democrats.

The Democratic Party identification edge has been reduced to 47 percent to 43 percent. That's a 4 point drop for Democrats and a 4 point rise for Republicans since 2008.

The Pew analysts note, as if they were analyzing a growth stock, that the Republicans' numbers haven't improved since 2010. But the 2010 numbers yielded a 52 percent to 45 percent Republican lead in the popular vote for the House.

If -- and it's always a big if -- Republicans can maintain that standing in party identification, they should be in fine shape in November 2012, even with increased presidential year turnout.

It's interesting to see which groups have moved most in party identification.


{snip}................


The most noteworthy movement among whites has been among voters under 30, the so-called Millennial generation. Millennials voted 66 percent to 32 percent for Barack Obama in 2008 and identified as Democrats rather than Republicans by a 60 percent to 32 percent margin.

But white Millennials have been moving away from the Democrats. The Democratic edge in party identification among white Millennials dropped from 7 points in 2008 to 3 points in 2009 to a 1 point Republican edge in 2010 and an 11 point Republican lead in 2011.
That last bit is very promising.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”