Really, you just can't imagine how much fun this is. Hillary Rodham Clinton, President of the United States. 2016-2020 ( won by default)

(06-25-2014 08:45 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Looking at establishment Republicans like McCain, Graham, McConnell, etc. and I'm seeing less difference between them and democrats on many issues, like immigration reform, spending and taxes. Recently an establishment Republican joined with a democrat to co-sponsor a 12cent/gallon gasoline tax and add an inflation index to the tax going forward.

This scam the Republican establishment ran in Mississippi campaigning that primary opponent would oppose Obama as a bad thing just shows the establishment candidates will not only drop conservative principles but all principles.

When 2016 POTUS primary season starts the establishment Republicans will pick the candidate then crush all opposition. The last non-establishment candidate was Reagan.

I think it's time for the Tea Party to officially become a third party, UNLESS the Republicans agree to let state primaries be settled at the state level.

exactly what the left wants.

But Republicans are now left of their base, talk of passing an amnesty bill after mid-terms and one republican senator co-sponsoring a large gasoline tax increase, on critical issues it's hard to see a difference.

talking <> passing. one guy co-sponsoring a gas tax increase <> the whole party.

if that's all you got, I've actually got a better hand; I've got a full house, whack jobs and losers. you've got a pair of one-offs.

if you're going to bolt the party, I would hope you had better reasons that the generalized temper fit I have seen in this thread.

(06-25-2014 08:40 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:38 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I left the party back in 2008. TARP is what put me over the edge.

aren't you the guy that advocates using the central government to enforce an optimal birthrate in another thread? because if it is, I'm fairly sure you were never really in the republican party to begin with, and you certainly don't have a conservative bone in your body.

Haha. This is the first time Ive been accused of being liberal. I never said Id use the central government to enforce a birthrate. I proposed solutions to encourage changing direction, such as tax incentives for married couples that have children. This is a major long-term national security issue and it have contributed to the fall of many civilizations, including Rome.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(06-25-2014 08:45 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Looking at establishment Republicans like McCain, Graham, McConnell, etc. and I'm seeing less difference between them and democrats on many issues, like immigration reform, spending and taxes. Recently an establishment Republican joined with a democrat to co-sponsor a 12cent/gallon gasoline tax and add an inflation index to the tax going forward.

This scam the Republican establishment ran in Mississippi campaigning that primary opponent would oppose Obama as a bad thing just shows the establishment candidates will not only drop conservative principles but all principles.

When 2016 POTUS primary season starts the establishment Republicans will pick the candidate then crush all opposition. The last non-establishment candidate was Reagan.

I think it's time for the Tea Party to officially become a third party, UNLESS the Republicans agree to let state primaries be settled at the state level.

exactly what the left wants.

But Republicans are now left of their base, talk of passing an amnesty bill after mid-terms and one republican senator co-sponsoring a large gasoline tax increase, on critical issues it's hard to see a difference.

There will be no amnesty bill and any idiot pushing for that is too stupid to see what happened to Cantor.

What needs to happen is a total and all out revolt. Until then, we must get the DNC out of power.

Some of these clowns in the GOP think they have to promise liberal policies just to win elections.

(06-25-2014 08:42 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I know the idiots in IN and MO were freaks maybe even democrat plants, but does anyone know if McDaniel had any weird beliefs? He had served for several years in the MS senate surely he had enough of a record to know if he was a wacko.

He'd been accused of making racist comments during his time as a radio host, but so far, there's been nothing but inneundo and accusations that were pretty much unproven.

but if you mean during his time as a state senator. Nope, I don't think there was anything that stood out.

Although I will say this, the infamous 'robocall" that went out, does not ever appear to have been endorsed by Cochran or his campaign, so I think McDaniel needs to drop that line of thinking

Re: the blogger who broke into Cochran's wife's nursing home... I don't think McDaniel had anything to do that, even though they tried to stick them to him.

There's quite a few 'irregularities' i think McDaniel could challenge on (rumoured payment to bus people to the voting booths, for instance), but that's not one of them.

As a social liberal to moderate and fiscal conservative, neither party works for me. I'll support the first one that does. I've preferred the republican party, but not enough to vote for them (and in all fairness, in Montgomery County, Texas, it doesn't matter), primarily because I think the democrats' fiscal liberalism has more potential to hurt me than the republicans' social conservatism.

And yes, Okla, it is possible to be a social liberal and fiscal conservative. It's not possible to be what YOU define as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. But I don't define social liberal the way you do, or at least the way your posts would suggest that you do, and neither does the mainstream. By your standards, I'm not a social liberal. So the conflict you claim to exist does not for me.

If you want to maintain otherwise, perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by social liberal.

(06-25-2014 08:48 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:40 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:38 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I left the party back in 2008. TARP is what put me over the edge.

aren't you the guy that advocates using the central government to enforce an optimal birthrate in another thread? because if it is, I'm fairly sure you were never really in the republican party to begin with, and you certainly don't have a conservative bone in your body.

Haha. This is the first time Ive been accused of being liberal. I never said Id use the central government to enforce a birthrate. I proposed solutions to encourage changing direction, such as tax incentives for married couples that have children. This is a major long-term national security issue and it have contributed to the fall of many civilizations, including Rome.

umm, tax incentives is using (or, misusing, as the case may be) the central government.

government presence is omnipresent and corrosive. people of good faith and character can't even tell when they're pitching an orwellian nightmare.

(06-25-2014 08:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As a social liberal to moderate and fiscal conservative, neither party works for me. I'll support the first one that does. I've preferred the republican party, but not enough to vote for them (and in all fairness, in Montgomery County, Texas, it doesn't matter), primarily because I think the democrats' fiscal liberalism has more potential to hurt me than the republicans' social conservatism.

And yes, Okla, it is possible to be a social liberal and fiscal conservative. It's not possible to be what YOU define as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. But I don't define social liberal the way you do, or at least the way your posts would suggest that you do, and neither does the mainstream. By your standards, I'm not a social liberal. So the conflict you claim to exist does not for me.

If you want to maintain otherwise, perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by social liberal.

Wrong thread

(06-25-2014 08:47 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:43 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:38 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:30 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Looking at establishment Republicans like McCain, Graham, McConnell, etc. and I'm seeing less difference between them and democrats on many issues, like immigration reform, spending and taxes. Recently an establishment Republican joined with a democrat to co-sponsor a 12cent/gallon gasoline tax and add an inflation index to the tax going forward.

This scam the Republican establishment ran in Mississippi campaigning that primary opponent would oppose Obama as a bad thing just shows the establishment candidates will not only drop conservative principles but all principles.

When 2016 POTUS primary season starts the establishment Republicans will pick the candidate then crush all opposition. The last non-establishment candidate was Reagan.

I think it's time for the Tea Party to officially become a third party, UNLESS the Republicans agree to let state primaries be settled at the state level.

you are deceived. the tea party no longer exists as the genuine grass roots movement that it was -- certainly not what it was in 2009. what the MSM insists on referring to as the "tea party" has been abducted by a small number of very loud, self interested bomb throwers that are as bent on the destruction of the republican party as they are defeating the obama agenda. that's just the fact of the matter. they are scorched earth, bomb throwing purists that are exploiting the remaining unhappiness within the republican party to make themselves rich and prominent.

the original tea party, less a few particularly disgruntled types, yourself, apparently, included, has been assimilated by the larger republican party, and is united in opposing the obama agenda. THAT is the lesson of this election cycle. unification, and no more gaddam todd akins or richard mourdocks.

you're at least three years behind the curve on this one.

Come on now, was Dole the best choice to oppose Clinton in 1996? Bush wasn't the best choice in 2000, but Gore was probably the worst the Democrats could have ran. 2008 McCain was a horrible option but it didn't matter W insured the GOP wasn't going to win, but 2012 Romney was clearly not the best since 4million fewer Republicans voted for him than McCain. Romney won independents but lost Republicans. Would Gingrich have won? Doubtful, but he wouldn't have held back in debates on campaign strategy, Romney was afraid of offending anyone so he wouldn't challenge Obama.

2014 - 3 = 2011.

who did you vote for in the last presidential primaries?

I did not vote in the primaries, NC is late by the time our primary hit Romney had all but clinched the nomination.

ah. I see.

(06-25-2014 08:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As a social liberal to moderate and fiscal conservative, neither party works for me. I'll support the first one that does. I've preferred the republican party, but not enough to vote for them (and in all fairness, in Montgomery County, Texas, it doesn't matter), primarily because I think the democrats' fiscal liberalism has more potential to hurt me than the republicans' social conservatism.

And yes, Okla, it is possible to be a social liberal and fiscal conservative. It's not possible to be what YOU define as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. But I don't define social liberal the way you do, or at least the way your posts would suggest that you do, and neither does the mainstream. By your standards, I'm not a social liberal. So the conflict you claim to exist does not for me.

If you want to maintain otherwise, perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by social liberal.

are we doing this again?

An Orwellian nightmare caused by raising the child tax deduction? You have to be kidding me.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(06-25-2014 08:44 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Those that cannot see the importance of getting the DNC out of Washington were never conservative GOP imo.

Looking back at "W" he made major mistakes. He should have reformed the subprime lending rules it never made sense to allow that lending in the first place. His post 9/11 economic policies proved to be Band-Aid solutions as evidenced by the collapse, and he had the opportunity to get a conservative immigration reform through congress and wasted the opportunity.

Mark my words, the 2016 Republican Nominee will be one of the following: Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Those three are already establishment favorites.

(06-25-2014 08:53 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As a social liberal to moderate and fiscal conservative, neither party works for me. I'll support the first one that does. I've preferred the republican party, but not enough to vote for them (and in all fairness, in Montgomery County, Texas, it doesn't matter), primarily because I think the democrats' fiscal liberalism has more potential to hurt me than the republicans' social conservatism.
And yes, Okla, it is possible to be a social liberal and fiscal conservative. It's not possible to be what YOU define as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. But I don't define social liberal the way you do, or at least the way your posts would suggest that you do, and neither does the mainstream. By your standards, I'm not a social liberal. So the conflict you claim to exist does not for me.
If you want to maintain otherwise, perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by social liberal.

are we doing this again?

I'm not, unless he's willing to define his terminology. In that case I'll venture a response or two before shutting it down.

(06-25-2014 08:50 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:42 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I know the idiots in IN and MO were freaks maybe even democrat plants, but does anyone know if McDaniel had any weird beliefs? He had served for several years in the MS senate surely he had enough of a record to know if he was a wacko.

He'd been accused of making racist comments during his time as a radio host, but so far, there's been nothing but inneundo and accusations that were pretty much unproven.

but if you mean during his time as a state senator. Nope, I don't think there was anything that stood out.

Although I will say this, the infamous 'robocall" that went out, does not ever appear to have been endorsed by Cochran or his campaign, so I think McDaniel needs to drop that line of thinking

Re: the blogger who broke into Cochran's wife's nursing home... I don't think McDaniel had anything to do that, even though they tried to stick them to him.

There's quite a few 'irregularities' i think McDaniel could challenge on (rumoured payment to bus people to the voting booths, for instance), but that's not one of them.

I was disappointed, too, quite frankly. But I didn't get an "F" in "enemy identification":

MY POLITICAL ENEMY


NOT MY POLITICAL ENEMY

(06-25-2014 08:55 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:44 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Those that cannot see the importance of getting the DNC out of Washington were never conservative GOP imo.

Looking back at "W" he made major mistakes. He should have reformed the subprime lending rules it never made sense to allow that lending in the first place. His post 9/11 economic policies proved to be Band-Aid solutions as evidenced by the collapse, and he had the opportunity to get a conservative immigration reform through congress and wasted the opportunity.

Mark my words, the 2016 Republican Nominee will be one of the following: Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Those three are already establishment favorites.

We cannot purge the weak if people bail. Conservatism is the only way. Jeb Bush is not likely considering what happened to Cantor.

(06-25-2014 08:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:53 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As a social liberal to moderate and fiscal conservative, neither party works for me. I'll support the first one that does. I've preferred the republican party, but not enough to vote for them (and in all fairness, in Montgomery County, Texas, it doesn't matter), primarily because I think the democrats' fiscal liberalism has more potential to hurt me than the republicans' social conservatism.
And yes, Okla, it is possible to be a social liberal and fiscal conservative. It's not possible to be what YOU define as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. But I don't define social liberal the way you do, or at least the way your posts would suggest that you do, and neither does the mainstream. By your standards, I'm not a social liberal. So the conflict you claim to exist does not for me.
If you want to maintain otherwise, perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by social liberal.

are we doing this again?

I'm not, unless he's willing to define his terminology. In that case I'll venture a response or two before shutting it down.

Wrong thread.

(06-25-2014 08:56 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:50 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:42 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I know the idiots in IN and MO were freaks maybe even democrat plants, but does anyone know if McDaniel had any weird beliefs? He had served for several years in the MS senate surely he had enough of a record to know if he was a wacko.

He'd been accused of making racist comments during his time as a radio host, but so far, there's been nothing but inneundo and accusations that were pretty much unproven.

but if you mean during his time as a state senator. Nope, I don't think there was anything that stood out.

Although I will say this, the infamous 'robocall" that went out, does not ever appear to have been endorsed by Cochran or his campaign, so I think McDaniel needs to drop that line of thinking

Re: the blogger who broke into Cochran's wife's nursing home... I don't think McDaniel had anything to do that, even though they tried to stick them to him.

There's quite a few 'irregularities' i think McDaniel could challenge on (rumoured payment to bus people to the voting booths, for instance), but that's not one of them.

I was disappointed, too, quite frankly. But I didn't get an "F" in "enemy identification":

MY POLITICAL ENEMY


NOT MY POLITICAL ENEMY

How do you tell them apart?

(06-25-2014 08:54 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  An Orwellian nightmare caused by raising the child tax deduction? You have to be kidding me.

first of all, that's not exactly how you were spinning it in the other thread, but I appreciate that you want to understate it here.

however, you're still wrong. the tax code should be used to fund the necessary operations of government, NOT to coerce specific behaviors from it's citizens.

(06-25-2014 08:58 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:56 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:50 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:42 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I know the idiots in IN and MO were freaks maybe even democrat plants, but does anyone know if McDaniel had any weird beliefs? He had served for several years in the MS senate surely he had enough of a record to know if he was a wacko.

He'd been accused of making racist comments during his time as a radio host, but so far, there's been nothing but inneundo and accusations that were pretty much unproven.

but if you mean during his time as a state senator. Nope, I don't think there was anything that stood out.

Although I will say this, the infamous 'robocall" that went out, does not ever appear to have been endorsed by Cochran or his campaign, so I think McDaniel needs to drop that line of thinking

Re: the blogger who broke into Cochran's wife's nursing home... I don't think McDaniel had anything to do that, even though they tried to stick them to him.

There's quite a few 'irregularities' i think McDaniel could challenge on (rumoured payment to bus people to the voting booths, for instance), but that's not one of them.

I was disappointed, too, quite frankly. But I didn't get an "F" in "enemy identification":

MY POLITICAL ENEMY


NOT MY POLITICAL ENEMY

How do you tell them apart?

one of them hijacked my healthcare. the other one did not.

(06-25-2014 08:58 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:56 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:50 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:42 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I know the idiots in IN and MO were freaks maybe even democrat plants, but does anyone know if McDaniel had any weird beliefs? He had served for several years in the MS senate surely he had enough of a record to know if he was a wacko.

He'd been accused of making racist comments during his time as a radio host, but so far, there's been nothing but inneundo and accusations that were pretty much unproven.

but if you mean during his time as a state senator. Nope, I don't think there was anything that stood out.

Although I will say this, the infamous 'robocall" that went out, does not ever appear to have been endorsed by Cochran or his campaign, so I think McDaniel needs to drop that line of thinking

Re: the blogger who broke into Cochran's wife's nursing home... I don't think McDaniel had anything to do that, even though they tried to stick them to him.

There's quite a few 'irregularities' i think McDaniel could challenge on (rumoured payment to bus people to the voting booths, for instance), but that's not one of them.

I was disappointed, too, quite frankly. But I didn't get an "F" in "enemy identification":

MY POLITICAL ENEMY


NOT MY POLITICAL ENEMY

How do you tell them apart?

One goes on junkets with his landlord.
The other enjoys cowboy love poetry...