Republican leadership

Issues of a more global nature: National Politics, etc.
Forum rules
Please Click Here To View Rules ---- To contact the administrator please email admin@southshoreforums.com
Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Nov Tue 23, 2010 10:53 am

Senator Jon Kyl wants:

Extension of Bush tax cuts for everyone (add 4 trillion to the deficit)
Increase spending on nuclear arsenal modernization by 14 billion over next decade
All out counter-insurgency in Afghanistan (Cost? Who knows?)
Military action against Iran by us or Israel (either way, we pay)

And, he'll vote to block ratification vote on new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with Russia. (Kissinger, Scowcroft, James Baker all support the treaty)

Anyone on the conservative side paying attention, or are they too busy wondering if SP will run in 2012?

lost cause
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 6253
Joined: Mar Mon 26, 2007 9:55 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by lost cause » Nov Tue 23, 2010 11:22 am

Mac66 wrote:Senator Jon Kyl wants:

Extension of Bush tax cuts for everyone (add 4 trillion to the deficit)
Increase spending on nuclear arsenal modernization by 14 billion over next decade
All out counter-insurgency in Afghanistan (Cost? Who knows?)
Military action against Iran by us or Israel (either way, we pay)

And, he'll vote to block ratification vote on new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with Russia. (Kissinger, Scowcroft, James Baker all support the treaty)

Anyone on the conservative side paying attention, or are they too busy wondering if SP will run in 2012?
He doesn't have to vote to block the SALT treaty, the senate needs a 2/3 majority and doesn't have it at all. No matter how he votes.

They should pass the Bush Tax cuts for all, and at the same time cut government spending, republicans are already saying they want to eliminate earmarks, that comes to 16 billion right there alone.

Afghanistan as come to the point where you either have to go all in, or look to leave. The fact that we are now shipping heavy tanks over there for the first time tells you that this administration is starting to see the same thing.

I think Iran is going to implode from the inside but it doesn't hurt to let them know that we have not taken it off the table. Remember Iranians are not Arabs and will not get the support from other countries in the region.
America Built by Heroes, Ruined by Liberals

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Nov Tue 23, 2010 11:59 am

Why vote against the treaty?

As part of the larger deficit issue, earmarks are insignificant. And they won't be completely eliminated. Republicans are pushing for only a 2 year prohibition.
That $16 billion is undeniably real money, but it amounts to just half of 1 percent of the $3.5 trillion federal budget. Lawmakers carve most earmarks from within agency budgets, so eliminating them would not save money but simply mean it would be spent on something else.
3 wars simultaneously? Is he nuts? Hilary Clinton has already done the tough talking.

Iran is paying Karzai 1- 6 million monthly under the table, bags of cash, literally. Our partner is unstable and corrupt. Care to explain the mission?

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12123
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by specialties » Nov Tue 23, 2010 12:13 pm

Not to worry, Mac...

We know that the communists don't get it, and if the g.o.p. doesn't get it then look for emerging ALL AMERICANS to take the Indy-Tea vote...

That is all...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

lost cause
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 6253
Joined: Mar Mon 26, 2007 9:55 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by lost cause » Nov Tue 23, 2010 1:08 pm

Mac66 wrote:Why vote against the treaty?

As part of the larger deficit issue, earmarks are insignificant. And they won't be completely eliminated. Republicans are pushing for only a 2 year prohibition.
That $16 billion is undeniably real money, but it amounts to just half of 1 percent of the $3.5 trillion federal budget. Lawmakers carve most earmarks from within agency budgets, so eliminating them would not save money but simply mean it would be spent on something else.
3 wars simultaneously? Is he nuts? Hilary Clinton has already done the tough talking.

Iran is paying Karzai 1- 6 million monthly under the table, bags of cash, literally. Our partner is unstable and corrupt. Care to explain the mission?
I haven't gone through the the SALT Treaty but there seems to be a lot of people who are against it.

Good for Hilary Clinton, but does that mean nobody else in the government is allowed to say anything. And the Iranians don't seem very impressed with what anybody in the Obama administration is saying.

You seem to forget that a woman's word doesn't mean much in the Muslim World.

I don't know what Iran is paying Karzai, the mission to Afghanistan was supposed to be to get the terrorist and that still seems to be the mission. However you can't just going and kill everybody you do need build up the government as well.

Considering we currently have several congressman on trial for corruption, not to mention it happening is Mass politics very recently as well, it seems they may have picked up American Politics.
America Built by Heroes, Ruined by Liberals

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Nov Tue 23, 2010 1:40 pm

Bin Laden will be found only if he screws up or if someone sells him out. Unlikely.

And if finding him remains the mission...

We went to war under the Bush admin. Time for the Republicans to finally engage and work with Obama to create an exit strategy. Or commit more billions and make Afghanistan a client state.

The Republicans will do nothing domestically or foreign policy wise if it in any way lessens the chances of capturing the WH in 2012. McConnell was already clear on this.

User avatar
Justguy
Resident
Resident
Posts: 1536
Joined: May Thu 17, 2007 10:28 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Justguy » Nov Tue 23, 2010 2:05 pm

Why isn't anyone mentioning that the deaths of Americans is on the rise in a small scale war. obama is just letting men die quietly without doing anything because the press is in the bag

http://icasualties.org/

We spent more dough paying for Barneys F*&k buddy than helping out the military boys

lost cause
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 6253
Joined: Mar Mon 26, 2007 9:55 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by lost cause » Nov Tue 23, 2010 2:21 pm

Mac66 wrote:Bin Laden will be found only if he screws up or if someone sells him out. Unlikely.

And if finding him remains the mission...

We went to war under the Bush admin. Time for the Republicans to finally engage and work with Obama to create an exit strategy. Or commit more billions and make Afghanistan a client state.

The Republicans will do nothing domestically or foreign policy wise if it in any way lessens the chances of capturing the WH in 2012. McConnell was already clear on this.

I believe the UN while in Lisbon last week came up with an exit strategy, at least that is what Obama was crowing about in a press conference.
America Built by Heroes, Ruined by Liberals

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Nov Tue 23, 2010 2:31 pm

Why isn't anyone mentioning that the deaths of Americans is on the rise in a small scale war.
If you call out the truth, you'll be labeled a defeatist, a leftist, socialist, or worse. Karzai is playing both sides, Iran is supplying our enemies, the Taliban are being protected by the Pakistani secret police, no one here cares about it, and all the Afghani people want is for the shooting to stop, and someone to give them a little leg up. Just crazy.

Boehner in 2009:
It is clear that we need more troops in Afghanistan if we are going to succeed."
That's for domestic consumption and political expedience.

Right. Tell that to the Russians.

User avatar
Justguy
Resident
Resident
Posts: 1536
Joined: May Thu 17, 2007 10:28 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Justguy » Nov Tue 23, 2010 3:01 pm

They had no problem during Bushes tenure. The Dems are abandoning the young men they say they were defending

I guess it is we have the whitehouse and more now our young men can die and we will ignore it and move on to healthcare and be called socialists for a reason

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12123
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by specialties » Nov Tue 23, 2010 4:09 pm

We spent more dough paying for Barneys F*&k buddy than helping out the military boys
The day of reconing is headed around the bend...

Time for 'them' to bend over...

Yep, they gonna be some pissed...
Start with mizz fartwaddle, then exile her to Mexico if found guilty...
There are TWO ( count them ) Janets in their moon, and rising...
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Nov Wed 24, 2010 7:06 am

The Dems are abandoning the young men they say they were defending
The abandoning happened under the GWB's admin. Obama is pressuring the Pakistanis, killing off the Taliban with drones, sending more troops, and more hardware.

All for nought, imho, but he's doing it.

User avatar
Justguy
Resident
Resident
Posts: 1536
Joined: May Thu 17, 2007 10:28 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Justguy » Nov Wed 24, 2010 1:19 pm

that is an interesting point. How many times had Mchrystal spoken with Obama about a plan from Jan 09 and Augustish 09? NONE

Have you seen the death tolls in afganistan?
There is something wrong with you when you make an argument that it is okay to basicly ignore because (you think) the previous president did it.

What the hell does what is going on now have to do with GWB?

You think a flawed plan that is causing more deaths is okay because he is doing something? Idiotic

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Jan Mon 17, 2011 8:18 am

From the National Review, on GOP Congressional freshmen and Paul Ryan's roadmap for deficit reduction, loudly published in 2010:
...as Ryan preps for a spring budget battle, Cantor, House Speaker John Boehner, and others are not showing much eagerness to take up the roadmaps specifics. Ryans project, which proposes we curb the looming debt crisis by moving toward a defined-contribution model for entitlements over the next several decades, languishes.

Nevertheless, with Ryan now holding real power, along with a burgeoning national profile, Republicans will be forced to choose how aggressively to act on his big ideas even if it makes them uncomfortable. With a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, chances for major policy change are slim. But the public will eye how Republicans fight to see if theyre serious about finding a solution.
I think its a good start; its not perfect, says Rep. Allen West (R., Fla.). We have to be able to be flexible.
Rep. Kristi Noem (R., S.D.), a member of the House leadership team, tells us she likes portions of the roadmap, such as Ryans caps on spending, but beyond that, I havent explored too far.

Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio), who returned to Congress this month after losing his seat in 2008, takes a similar tack. We are still studying it, what the implications might be for the budget, he says. Im not ready to announce a position. Im sure there are parts of it that we agree with probably the vast majority of it but there may be some things we have problems with. We need more time.

Rep. Patrick Meehan, a freshman from Pennsylvania, is reserving judgment. So is Rep. Jon Runyan (R., N.J.). Its something we are digging through slowly, he says. Im not prepared to make a statement on that. Others point out that they like Ryans push to simplify the tax code and his focus on the debt, but become evasive when pressed for their opinion of its adjustments to Medicare and Social Security.

Rep. Sean Duffy (R., Wis.), a freshman and a close friend of Ryans, understands the nervous response by many in his class. This is Paul Ryans vision, he explains. Many members in the freshman class would be able to tell you a few good things about Pauls roadmap, but could they all go out there and defend it? No.
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) notes in an interview with NRO. Ryan is legit on this, but I dont think the rest of them are. Maybe thats partly why they gave him this power so they can hide behind him.
I hope that Kristi can "find the time" to read Ryan's document. Deficit hawks? We'll see.

User avatar
Earl Jr
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 17225
Joined: Jun Sat 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Mtn Home, Idaho
Contact:

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Earl Jr » Jan Mon 17, 2011 1:35 pm

Mac66 wrote:Senator Jon Kyl wants:

Extension of Bush tax cuts for everyone (add 4 trillion to the deficit)
Increase spending on nuclear arsenal modernization by 14 billion over next decade
All out counter-insurgency in Afghanistan (Cost? Who knows?)
Military action against Iran by us or Israel (either way, we pay)

And, he'll vote to block ratification vote on new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with Russia. (Kissinger, Scowcroft, James Baker all support the treaty)

Anyone on the conservative side paying attention, or are they too busy wondering if SP will run in 2012?
Sounds good as Kissinger,Scowcroft and Baker are appeasing RINOs anyway! Explain what he wants to do about Afghanistan?
Image

God Bless Our Troops

User avatar
Earl Jr
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 17225
Joined: Jun Sat 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Mtn Home, Idaho
Contact:

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Earl Jr » Jan Mon 17, 2011 1:53 pm

"Right. Tell that to the Russians."

I totally agree with mac here and I've been there. I remember my buddy Tom and I on a mission to recover 6 fatalities in a C-130 crash on the border, all we kept saying to each other as we gazed towards Kandahar was a quote from a movie called "the Beast",

Afghanistan..............................

And that was 2001 when most of the casualties were Air Force and Special Forces. We were there to kill Bin Laden and his cronies and NOTHING else!
Things are not the same any more. GI's at my base are psyched to deploy to Bagram now, it's a huge money maker for them. Of course the divorce rates go up but they have been rising since 1990. And the cops and especially the EOD guys aren't too happy about going. I's a big waste of life,time and money to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's time to get out of both and into Iran!
Image

God Bless Our Troops

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Feb Sat 05, 2011 10:52 pm

Even as they take a cleaver to many domestic agencies, Republicans now running the House are barely touching Congress' generous own budget.

A new GOP proposal would reduce domestic agencies' spending by 9 percent on average through September, when the current budget year ends.

If that plan becomes law, it could lead to layoffs of tens of thousands of federal employees, big cuts to heating and housing subsidies for the poor, reduced grants to schools and law enforcement agencies, and a major hit to the Internal Revenue Service's budget.

Congress, on the other hand, would get nicked by only 2 percent, or $94 million.

Recent hefty increases to the congressional budget -- engineered by Democrats when they held power in the House from 2007-2010 -- would remain largely in place under a plan announced Thursday by the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky.

The plan, developed in close consultation with Republican Speaker John Boehner's office, would cut Congress' budget less than any other domestic spending bill, except for the one covering the Department of Homeland Security.

All 12 spending bills left unfinished by Democrats will go into a single, enormous measure that Republicans promise to bring up the week of Feb. 14.

"Charity begins at home, and Congress should lead the way with cuts to their own budget," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group. "Instead they're protecting their bottom line while slashing everyone else's."

The cut to Congress gets a little deeper, to 3.5 percent, if it were imposed for a full calendar year instead of the seven months that will remain in the current budget year. But so, too, would the cuts to other agencies -- growing to 16 percent.

When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they inherited a $3.8 billion budget for Congress. That includes money for members' and leadership offices, House and Senate committees, and support agencies such as the Capitol Police and the Congressional Budget Office, which crunches numbers for lawmakers as they consider legislation.

Believer
Tourist
Tourist
Posts: 264
Joined: Jun Sun 27, 2010 7:09 pm

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Believer » Feb Sat 05, 2011 11:17 pm

Mac66 wrote:Even as they take a cleaver to many domestic agencies, Republicans now running the House are barely touching Congress' generous own budget.

A new GOP proposal would reduce domestic agencies' spending by 9 percent on average through September, when the current budget year ends.

If that plan becomes law, it could lead to layoffs of tens of thousands of federal employees, big cuts to heating and housing subsidies for the poor, reduced grants to schools and law enforcement agencies, and a major hit to the Internal Revenue Service's budget.

Congress, on the other hand, would get nicked by only 2 percent, or $94 million.

Recent hefty increases to the congressional budget -- engineered by Democrats when they held power in the House from 2007-2010 -- would remain largely in place under a plan announced Thursday by the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky.

The plan, developed in close consultation with Republican Speaker John Boehner's office, would cut Congress' budget less than any other domestic spending bill, except for the one covering the Department of Homeland Security.

All 12 spending bills left unfinished by Democrats will go into a single, enormous measure that Republicans promise to bring up the week of Feb. 14.

"Charity begins at home, and Congress should lead the way with cuts to their own budget," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group. "Instead they're protecting their bottom line while slashing everyone else's."

The cut to Congress gets a little deeper, to 3.5 percent, if it were imposed for a full calendar year instead of the seven months that will remain in the current budget year. But so, too, would the cuts to other agencies -- growing to 16 percent.

When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they inherited a $3.8 billion budget for Congress. That includes money for members' and leadership offices, House and Senate committees, and support agencies such as the Capitol Police and the Congressional Budget Office, which crunches numbers for lawmakers as they consider legislation.
Ok. I don't refute your point, out of hand. What do you recommend as meaningfull token of "congress's sharing in the nations' austerity? I am all for cutting out government waste and excess, wherever it is uncovered. After all, we taxpayers end up paying for it, wether we are republican, democrat, and independant.


On a related note:

I actually do respect your opinions, even though you and I do not share political views. Purely from what I've read of your posts, to date, I sincerely believe you to be a very moral and principled person, one with a clear sense of "RIGHT" AND "WRONG". I do not at all find you to be deceitful or dishonest in the least.

With this understanding, Let me ask you another question...along the lines of your point of being realistic about cutting out unnecessary spending...

If you were presented with a scenario where a Municipal Government had a building that needed repairs and the two options were to:

1.) Make all the recommended and requested repairs to the existing building that is in current use, at an estimated cost of approvimately $20 mil that, assuming proper annual maintenance, moving forward would reasonably extend the existing buildig's current 40 year life, by as a minimum of another 15+ years to at least 55+ years; And with all proceeds to come from a municipal bond issue that the town's taxpayers would make principal and interest payments on for the next 20+ years.

or

2.) Tearing down the existing building that is currently in use and building an entirely new one for a total estimate construction cost of between $100 mil and $130 mil. (and likely incuring additional costs for new furnishings, equipment, and supplies for a possible additional cost of $30 mil.); And that, assuming no change in past building repair and annual maintenance practices, would support the new building for another 40 years, as was the case with the existing building. ALL, likely paid for with a combination of municipal and state bonds cumulatively totaling in excess of $130 to $160 mill and incuring principal and interest payments by taxpayers for at least the next 20 years.


A. If those were the only two options, which would you choose...and Why?

B. Would you recomend any other option be presented? If so, what would that option be?


Believer
Last edited by Believer on Feb Sun 06, 2011 9:05 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Kurt Schluter
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4770
Joined: Apr Fri 07, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Kurt Schluter » Feb Sun 06, 2011 7:31 am

Believer- Good question! One thing missing however in order to answer it properly is the expected life of the new school.
Make America Great Again!
Trump/Pence 2016

Believer
Tourist
Tourist
Posts: 264
Joined: Jun Sun 27, 2010 7:09 pm

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Believer » Feb Sun 06, 2011 9:03 am

Kurt Schluter wrote:Believer- Good question! One thing missing however in order to answer it properly is the expected life of the new school.

Good point.

I edited the prior post to put that in.


Believer

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Feb Sun 06, 2011 9:37 am

Good question.

Option 1. Approximately equal benefit at significantly lower cost. Although, rehabbing an existing structure will encounter unexpected difficulties, raising the cost by some percentage. Still, keeping a serviceable structure with furnishings is an act of good stewardship for the town.

Believer
Tourist
Tourist
Posts: 264
Joined: Jun Sun 27, 2010 7:09 pm

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Believer » Feb Sun 06, 2011 9:43 am

Mac66 wrote:Good question.

Option 1. Approximately equal benefit at significantly lower cost. Although, rehabbing an existing structure will encounter unexpected difficulties, raising the cost by some percentage. Still, keeping a serviceable structure with furnishings is an act of good stewardship for the town.

Thanks for your response.

We are in agreement.


Believer

User avatar
Earl Jr
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 17225
Joined: Jun Sat 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Mtn Home, Idaho
Contact:

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Earl Jr » Feb Sun 27, 2011 12:37 pm

This is GOP leadership? Caving in democRAT ass kissing if you ask me!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/0 ... eform.html
Image

God Bless Our Troops

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Feb Sun 27, 2011 1:15 pm

From WSJ profile of Mitch Daniels. I hope he runs for President.

Some nuggets:

Social Security? Jack up the retirement age and end it entirely for wealthier Americans;

Medicare? Turn it into a voucher system and let people buy their own health insurance;

Health care? has suggested the government put limits of end of life care (a Republican suggesting death panels? Lock and load, SP.)

Education? a voucher system.

Time to "grab every third rail there is, all the things that people say, "well, you just can't do that politically."

Of course he was Bush's budget director when the government saw a surplus turn into years of deficit spending, and when Mr. Bush launched his Medicare Part D subsidy, which now comes in at 60 Billion per year - the largest expansion of entitlements for the elderly in decades. (This is the WSJ, talking, talk to them.)

Anyway, real interesting article. He seems like the only guy from either side really willing to tackle entitlements. Not a TP guy.

User avatar
Earl Jr
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 17225
Joined: Jun Sat 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Mtn Home, Idaho
Contact:

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Earl Jr » Feb Sun 27, 2011 2:26 pm

Oh yeah another RINO!
Image

God Bless Our Troops

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Feb Sun 27, 2011 4:34 pm

Earl-

So, who's your nominee?

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13955
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: Republican leadership

Post by MCasper » Feb Sun 27, 2011 6:22 pm

I like Daniels.
Image

bobkat
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 6903
Joined: May Mon 22, 2000 1:01 am
Location: just above Vinebrook

Re: Republican leadership

Post by bobkat » Feb Sun 27, 2011 9:24 pm

Who ever wins the White house has to win the people of Penn,Ohio, Ill. Ind. Wis, and Mn. I believe the only Republican that can do that is Tim Pawlenty. All the other ones have to much baggage.

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13955
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: Republican leadership

Post by MCasper » Feb Sun 27, 2011 9:37 pm

bobkat wrote:Who ever wins the White house has to win the people of Penn,Ohio, Ill. Ind. Wis, and Mn. I believe the only Republican that can do that is Tim Pawlenty. All the other ones have to much baggage.
They need Ohio and Indiana. The rest are gravy. Even The Duke carried WI and MN. And he only lost IL and PA by 2% and 2.3% respectively.

I like Pawlenty too.
Image

User avatar
Kurt Schluter
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4770
Joined: Apr Fri 07, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Kurt Schluter » Feb Mon 28, 2011 6:08 am

Allen West, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman.
All are derided by the left as stupid because they are scared to death of them.These 3 represent America today, not the socialists in government and the unions. They are scared to read their books and other commentaries but just listen to the lies on msnbc. All 3 are more intelligent and capable than Obama.
Make America Great Again!
Trump/Pence 2016

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Feb Mon 28, 2011 9:51 am

Allen West, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman.
Christmas comes early to the Dems if the GOP nominates one of these 3. West and Bachman don't have the profile/experience, and SP is living too well now to give it all up for one of the toughest jobs in the world.

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Feb Mon 28, 2011 2:15 pm

from the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia:
Quotation: "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

Variations: 1. "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

Sources consulted: Searching on the phrase "hammer their guns"

1. Monticello website
2. Ford's Works of Thomas Jefferson
3. UVA EText Jefferson Digital Archive: Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, Texts by or to Thomas Jefferson from the Modern English Collection
4. Thomas Jefferson Retirement Papers
5. Quotable Jefferson, ed. Kaminski (searching under "guns")


Earliest known appearance in print: No appearances in print found. [1]

Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Thomas Jefferson: See above.

Other attributions: None known.

Status: We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

User avatar
Earl Jr
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 17225
Joined: Jun Sat 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Mtn Home, Idaho
Contact:

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Earl Jr » Mar Wed 02, 2011 3:39 pm

Mac66 wrote:Earl-

So, who's your nominee?
Demint, Palin, Paul, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Santorum, possibly Trump or Gingrich although Gingrich has gotten very soft over the years. There are many more but not electable in this day and age........................
Image

God Bless Our Troops

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Mar Thu 03, 2011 7:46 am

Interesting list. I don't think any of them can win.

The right lives to kick Obama around, so perhaps putting up a weak candidate is all part of the plan. I'd vote for Daniels in a heartbeat if given the chance.

User avatar
MCasper
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 13955
Joined: Apr Thu 13, 2000 1:01 am
facebook ID: citrushills
Location: Hernando, FL USA
Contact:

Re: Republican leadership

Post by MCasper » Mar Thu 03, 2011 8:29 am

Mac66 wrote:Interesting list. I don't think any of them can win.

The right lives to kick Obama around, so perhaps putting up a weak candidate is all part of the plan. I'd vote for Daniels in a heartbeat if given the chance.
Pawlenty has a chance.
Image

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Mar Tue 08, 2011 11:01 am

Good piece on Huckabee in today's Globe. Very much on the fence, and at least according to the article, torn between running and giving up his revenue streams via Fox News, speeches, appearances, etc.

No rush to announce, and he's certainly correct about that.

lost cause
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 6253
Joined: Mar Mon 26, 2007 9:55 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by lost cause » Mar Tue 08, 2011 11:28 am

Why would anybody rush to announce at this point. The best plan is to sit and wait and give Obama the whole summer to fail, along with seeing what happens in congress.
America Built by Heroes, Ruined by Liberals

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Mar Tue 08, 2011 1:50 pm

Amazing to me the right is so invested in and hopeful that the elected leader of the free world will fail.

What constitutes acceptable failure?

...failing to end the hopelessly lost cause that is Afghanistan?
...failing to convince the Pakistanis to deal with the Taliban?
...failing to keep tabs on the lunatic in North Korea?
...failing to come to budget/deficit reduction deals with Republicans?
...failing to (fill in the blank)

Whatever. If and when Obama is beaten out of the WH, that right will have to come up with an agenda that doesn't involve Obama-hating. Good luck with that.

lost cause
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 6253
Joined: Mar Mon 26, 2007 9:55 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by lost cause » Mar Tue 08, 2011 3:01 pm

How about this concentrating on failure:

Mortgage bailouts
epic loss of congress
stimulus bill - not a jobs bill but a democratic payback bill
gm take over - gm had to eventually declare bankruptcy
cash for clunkers - cost 3 times more than original estimate
no real support from other countries in wars
lack of proper vetting
tax cheats in his admin
socialist in his admin
allowing radical racist communist in his admin - van jones
predicted 8% unemployment..now at 9.8%
making race relations worse - (stupidly comment- professor gates)
selling out other nations by removing missile defense
constantly campaigning
letting pelosi and reid write bills
allowing lobbyist when he said he wouldn't
lack of transparency
multiple czars with no accountability
lying about details of his healthcare reform bill - YOU LIE!!!
attempt to take over census
undecided about giving military what they need to win
putting caps on corporate pay
refusal to investigate black panthers
association with acorn
investigating CIA
worldwide apology tour
willing to bend over to our enemies while giving our allies the shaft
lack of support for israel
supporting a dictator in honduras
took too long to speak out against violence against voters in Iran
getting the NEA to produce propaganda art for his agenda
firing inspector general for investigating his friends at americorp
shutting down voucher program in DC for poor school kids
firing the head of gm
lied about putting bills online for 5 days
allowing unions large share in businesses taken over by government
intimidating businessmen (I'm only thing standing between you and the pitch forks)
allowing his admin to threaten shareholders during bankruptcy of car dealers
spending more than any president in history
raised the deficit 3 times the amount it was last year
bailout of fannie and freddie
will not be able to repay tarp money to taxpayers as promised
creating a trade war with china & mexico
devaluing the dollar all over the world because of massive debt & spending
allowing u.s. to become in debt to foreign countries
class warfare uproar over AIG bonuses but silent about bonuses for fanny & freddie
America Built by Heroes, Ruined by Liberals

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4239
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Republican leadership

Post by Mac66 » Mar Tue 08, 2011 3:06 pm

devaluing the dollar all over the world because of massive debt & spending
We're talking about Obama here, not Bush.

Post Reply