(02-12-2014 02:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 02:26 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 02:02 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 01:57 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  McClatchy/Marist Poll Feb 12, 2014
Hillary 56
Cruz 39

Please, please, please nominate Cruz. That would be awesome.

Hey, I can cherry pick polls too!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2...z-n1750315

Sen. Ted Cruz 44 / Hillary Clinton 44

Wow. That's very informative. We all know that if we want to see how two potential candidates for national office match up against each other, it's best to pull out a four month old poll that covers the single state of Colorado.

Does it physically hurt to be as stupid as you are?

I'm curious how many polls he had to look through until he could find one that could be warped to fit his position.

(02-12-2014 02:21 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 02:13 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Take the Senate in a few months and they may be able to hold his bumbling feet to the fire similar to what the Repub's were able to do during the Slick willie fiasco.

The Clinton presidency was the most fiscally conservative presidency of my lifetime. He deregulated industries and had a surplus.

I wish that any of our other "fiscally conservative" officials were the same way, but they aren't. Doesn't matter what letter is next to their name, they spend spend spend.

clinton had a surplus because he happened to be president when the dotcom bubble was in it's birth and expansion phases. what you are saying is true enough, I guess, but his success was almost a complete accident.

(02-12-2014 03:07 PM)EagleX Wrote:  clinton had a surplus because he happened to be president when the dotcom bubble was in it's birth and expansion phases. what you are saying is true enough, I guess, but his success was almost a complete accident.

Whether that is true or not doesn't matter... it is a fact that they had a surplus when he was president. It is a fact that he deregulated.

Reagan started the incredible spending spree that got worse when George H.W. Bush was in office, worse again when George W. Bush was in office, and worse yet when Barrack Obama was elected. During that time there have been times when the Republicans controlled everything, yet they overspent. There have been times when the Democrats controlled everything, yet they overspent. Neither party is fiscally conservative in any way.

(02-12-2014 02:48 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 01:27 PM)boss man Wrote:  All this discussion on the 2014 elections is a moot point.

Folks, the voting demographic line crossed in 2012. The TAKERS outnumber the PRODUCERS. End game. Democrats will win all future national elections. Sure, there will still be Republican Congressmen and Senators but that does not = conservative. A huge crash of RINOS up inside the Beltway, LOL!

If Hillary runs in 2016, she will win. Period. She could openly say in the first debate "Hell, yes, I meant exactly what I said to Congress following the Benghazi attacks. WTF DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Those guys died; too bad, so sad. Sh!t happens. We made the right decision then and I'd do it again."

As outrageous as that would be, I believe she'd still win.

I hope everyone is aware that when she said the, "what difference does it make" statement she was not talking about the deaths of those men. It is a great example of partisan attacks based on a distortion of the facts. It is affective but in no way accurate.

You're correct. She made the statement in reference to "who the fault lies with for it happening". Of course, she didn't want the "fault' to lie at her doorstep, she wants to be president.

Either she, or the department she headed, were negligent and people died because of it - but "what difference does it make at this point", right?

(02-12-2014 01:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 01:47 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 01:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Yeah yeah yeah, and then the same clowns whining now would have come back and talked about how the GOP blew it by allowing a shutdown. That's exactly what the DNC wants.

The GOP 100% came out the losers on the shutdown fiasco. Right or wrong, the Republicans did not win the court of public opinion on that one.

Wrong. Liberals and libertarians tried to make them out to be losers and that is exactly what they would do now.

The DNC are the losers and their loss of the Senate will solidify that.

Is your position that the Republican Party emerged politically stronger because of the government shutdown?

(02-12-2014 03:11 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 03:07 PM)EagleX Wrote:  clinton had a surplus because he happened to be president when the dotcom bubble was in it's birth and expansion phases. what you are saying is true enough, I guess, but his success was almost a complete accident.

Whether that is true or not doesn't matter... it is a fact that they had a surplus when he was president. It is a fact that he deregulated.

Reagan started the incredible spending spree that got worse when George H.W. Bush was in office, worse again when George W. Bush was in office, and worse yet when Barrack Obama was elected. During that time there have been times when the Republicans controlled everything, yet they overspent. There have been times when the Democrats controlled everything, yet they overspent. Neither party is fiscally conservative in any way.

what did the man who first tried (and failed) to nationalize my health care deregulate?

(02-12-2014 03:17 PM)EagleX Wrote:  what did the man who first tried (and failed) to nationalize my health care deregulate?

The wall street banks/housing market, which helped lead to the financial meltdown.

(02-12-2014 01:57 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 01:54 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 01:47 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 01:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Yeah yeah yeah, and then the same clowns whining now would have come back and talked about how the GOP blew it by allowing a shutdown. That's exactly what the DNC wants.

The GOP 100% came out the losers on the shutdown fiasco. Right or wrong, the Republicans did not win the court of public opinion on that one.

I agree 100%.

Of course you do because it fits your agenda.

Explain to me how Ted Cruz got hero status and is polling equal or better than Hillary.

McClatchy/Marist Poll Feb 12, 2014
Hillary 56
Cruz 39

Please, please, please nominate Cruz. That would be awesome.

I wouldn't dismiss cruz so fast. he has gotten the world's worst press from the MSM, as they tried to paint him as the second coming of todd akin or richard mourdock, and he certainly is not that. not even close.

he graduated from princeton and harvard, and he is nowhere near what he is made out to be. if he runs, he will surprise a lot of people. if he is nominated, he will surprise even more people.

(02-12-2014 03:24 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 03:17 PM)EagleX Wrote:  what did the man who first tried (and failed) to nationalize my health care deregulate?

The wall street banks/housing market, which helped lead to the financial meltdown.

I asked what did he DE-regulate.

(02-12-2014 03:11 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 02:48 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 01:27 PM)boss man Wrote:  All this discussion on the 2014 elections is a moot point.

Folks, the voting demographic line crossed in 2012. The TAKERS outnumber the PRODUCERS. End game. Democrats will win all future national elections. Sure, there will still be Republican Congressmen and Senators but that does not = conservative. A huge crash of RINOS up inside the Beltway, LOL!

If Hillary runs in 2016, she will win. Period. She could openly say in the first debate "Hell, yes, I meant exactly what I said to Congress following the Benghazi attacks. WTF DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Those guys died; too bad, so sad. Sh!t happens. We made the right decision then and I'd do it again."

As outrageous as that would be, I believe she'd still win.

I hope everyone is aware that when she said the, "what difference does it make" statement she was not talking about the deaths of those men. It is a great example of partisan attacks based on a distortion of the facts. It is affective but in no way accurate.

You're correct. She made the statement in reference to "who the fault lies with for it happening". Of course, she didn't want the "fault' to lie at her doorstep, she wants to be president.

Either she, or the department she headed, were negligent and people died because of it - but "what difference does it make at this point", right?

Well that isn't exactly true either. Here is a portion of the transcript from her testimony before congress.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, of the 19 Accountability Review Boards that have been held since 1988, only two have been made public. I want to stress that because the two that have been made public, coming out of the East Africa Embassy bombings and this one, are attempts, honest attempts by the State Department, by the Secretary – Secretary Albright and myself – to be as transparent and open as possible. We wanted to be sure that whatever these independent, nonpartisan boards found would be made available to the Congress and to the American people, because, as I have said many times since September 11th, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...z2t9Ejjlf8

(02-12-2014 04:03 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 03:24 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 03:17 PM)EagleX Wrote:  what did the man who first tried (and failed) to nationalize my health care deregulate?

The wall street banks/housing market, which helped lead to the financial meltdown.

I asked what did he DE-regulate.

You weren't aware that Clinton deregulated those? Ah, memories are short. Look up Glass-Steagall. Repealing it was a major deregulation screwup.

The house passes a CLEAN bill to raise the debt ceiling until March of 2015.

No demands. No cuts. Exactly what the Democrats want.




If you voted for this garbage ... you are simply not worthy of holding office. I'll dig up roll call momentarily.

Just 28 GOP yes votes.


http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/vot...house/2/61

False - it was in exchange for an increae in veteran benefits.

I'll say it again on this thread. Had they fought the Democrats on this, you would be here talking about how they blew it by forcing another shutdown.

This is why I don't care for the libertarian message... This hypocrisy.

Only a kool aid drinker calls consistency hypocrisy.

It's simple: want to raise the debt ceiling? Pick one or more than one:

1) Entitlement reform
2) Balanced budget constitutional amendment
3) $1,000,000,000,000 or greater immediate cut in spending

(02-12-2014 08:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Only a kool aid drinker calls consistency hypocrisy.

It's simple: want to raise the debt ceiling? Pick one or more than one:

1) Entitlement reform
2) Balanced budget constitutional amendment
3) $1,000,000,000,000 or greater immediate cut in spending

You mean how the libertarians consistently attack the GOP no matter what action or inaction they take?

The Democrats voted to defund veteran benefits. That was the exchange. So saying there were no demands is false. Secondly, had they refused to fund the govt, you and the other libertarians would attack them for how stupid they are for forcing a shutdown this close to an imminent Senate takeover.

This is why libertarians get accused of supporting the Democrats, because they basically are.

(02-12-2014 08:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Only a kool aid drinker calls consistency hypocrisy.

It's simple: want to raise the debt ceiling? Pick one or more than one:

1) Entitlement reform
2) Balanced budget constitutional amendment
3) $1,000,000,000,000 or greater immediate cut in spending

You mean how the libertarians consistently attack the GOP no matter what action or inaction they take?

The Democrats voted to defund veteran benefits. That was the exchange. So saying there were no demands is false. Secondly, had they refused to fund the govt, you and the other libertarians would attack them for how stupid they are for forcing a shutdown this close to an imminent Senate takeover.

This is why libertarians get accused of supporting the Democrats, because they basically are.

I criticize the GOP heavily because GOP leadership since Dubya has been an unmitigated disaster. You've seen through countless endless threads that you simply cannot or will not understand what it means to govern from philosophy instead of pooling together of disparate and contradictory groups.

(02-12-2014 08:21 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Only a kool aid drinker calls consistency hypocrisy.

It's simple: want to raise the debt ceiling? Pick one or more than one:

1) Entitlement reform
2) Balanced budget constitutional amendment
3) $1,000,000,000,000 or greater immediate cut in spending

You mean how the libertarians consistently attack the GOP no matter what action or inaction they take?

The Democrats voted to defund veteran benefits. That was the exchange. So saying there were no demands is false. Secondly, had they refused to fund the govt, you and the other libertarians would attack them for how stupid they are for forcing a shutdown this close to an imminent Senate takeover.

This is why libertarians get accused of supporting the Democrats, because they basically are.

I criticize the GOP heavily because GOP leadership since Dubya has been an unmitigated disaster. You've seen through countless endless threads that you simply cannot or will not understand what it means to govern from philosophy instead of pooling together of disparate and contradictory groups.

Dubya isn't in power and hasn't been for 7 years. The GOP is walking a fine line right now and cannot blow it before the midterms. You want to them to force another shutdown over the debt limit? Get real. They need Obamacare and the Democrat economy to be the front headlines. A shutdown is just the distraction the DNC and the media is wishing for. and you would be front and center criticizing them for that. They are trying to take control of Congress. Until they have a majority, they aren't going to be able to make the cuts you want.

If you want major cuts, then stop voting for people you know won't win and not for the opposition of people who are actually growing the Govt....the progressives.

You should be more angry with the morons who didn't vote for Romney. Only a fool would think he would be this.

At this point, to vote Libertarian, while I support some of their positions- sans the free and open dope smoking which constitutes a majority of their true believers, may as well be a vote to stay at home or one to cancel my vote for the only group with a realistic shot at ending some of this madness.

You want more pelosi reid obama and their unconstitutional, illegal and reckless madness? Vote third party. you'll get what you have voted for, perpetual minority status.

That's not sending some principled "message", that's throwing your weight behind the opposition. And really, really stupid.

(02-12-2014 05:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 04:03 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 03:24 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 03:17 PM)EagleX Wrote:  what did the man who first tried (and failed) to nationalize my health care deregulate?

The wall street banks/housing market, which helped lead to the financial meltdown.

I asked what did he DE-regulate.

You weren't aware that Clinton deregulated those? Ah, memories are short. Look up Glass-Steagall. Repealing it was a major deregulation screwup.

heavens. given the dozens of haphazard impulses during the Clinton years, picking one "punch out" of a depression era overreaction (as most were) (that was former Sen phil gramm's pet project to begin with) and labeling "deregulation" as a consistent Clinton era goal is to fundamentally misunderstand Clinton and the clintonistas.

besides, glass stegall was a dead letter long before it got knocked down.