smitty
-
Posts
5,632 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by smitty
-
-
-
-
-
5 hours ago, TxHoops said:
Serious question because I am not opposed to your statement in general. Just genuinely curious as to your thoughts (and feel free to tell me you'd rather not answer):
This position is uncommon, especially among many I know on the "right." I get the basis and reasoning of it. But are you okay with a state legalizing marijuana? Or same sex marriage? Especially if it is passed by proposition?
I don't think I'd be opposed to letting the states decide.
-
The problem is, is that the GOP establishment is willing to lose this election to protect their power. As Rush stated in comparison, " The Wizard of Oz didn't care what happened to Oz. He cared what happened to him." This is what we must fight.
-
-
-
1 hour ago, gohornets23 said:
I don't understand the point that is trying to be made, that kid was an idiot...his sister clearly is too..now he is dead, it's a tragedy that these two lack basic understanding of right and wrong. Are you trying to determine what went wrong with these people's upbringing to allow them to think this way? Maybe trying to start a discussion of the problems in America's inner cities and how they might be solved? Or is it more a "hey look at these dumb minorities" kinda thing? Sorry for being confused
It's there to form your on opinion of what you see.
-
Contrary to the thought here of those with the "youth and inexperience" (thank you Reagan!), and like-minded socialist, the squashy middle is NOT where elections are won! I'll set this challenge again, since we never got an answer to the same challenge before: I challenge anyone to go to any library and find any books on "Great Moderates" in history. We'll wait...
-
-
Interesting there are not any comments from the "touchy-feely" faction of this forum.
-
On 3/20/2016 at 1:23 PM, nappyroots said:
Bamatex calls it like it is, even if its his own party that he must call out. Im not voting for Hillary or Bernie, but I wouldn't vote for Cruz or Trump either. Don't really have a problem with Kasich.
WOW, again, a socialist praising Kasich! Must give a warm, cozy feeling to those that think/thought Kasich was the answer. SMH!
-
5 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:
You mean like the right wingers McCain and Romney...lol.
Don't forget Ford and Dole! LOL!!
-
-
-
57 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:
You mean someone on your own side of the aisle shows some independent thought and it was praised by one or two slovenly liberals!?!?!?!? It must be wrong! He must be a RINO plant here to stop true conservatism! Burn him at the stake!
Come back and respond when you're ready to provide an answer to all the questions I posed in my prior posts. Until then, you're just another political hack willing to say and do anything to blindly advance somebody else's cause.
LOL! Out of the mouths of babes! Again -- when two socialist agree with you here, then that ought to tell you something.
-
-
-
3 hours ago, nappyroots said:
Great post Bamatex
WOW!! You are the second LIBERAL to praise the post. Interesting!
-
-
20 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:
No, Bush 41 lost during a recession. It's common for changes of power to take place in the midst of economic hardship - in fact, if there's a single variable you can link major shake-ups in the line-up in Washington to over the last several decades, it's the shape the economy's in. That was the case in 1992, where you can trace the polling data that had Bush 41 ahead of Clinton literally up until the week of the election. Economics drives elections.
So Nixon gave us the EPA. Are you saying we don't need the EPA? And how his presidency ended has nothing to do with the fact that he was elected two landslides that have only been outdone by other Republicans.
And no, Romney didn't lose to the worst president in history. Why? Because...
*NEWSFLASH*: Barack Obama is NOT THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!!!!!
Shocking! I know!
Seriously, are you actually so blindly caught up in all the rhetoric that you believe that? Do you really think Obama could compare to Jimmy Carter in ineptitude? Do you think he's as corrupt as Ulysses Grant? As lazy and indifferent as James Buchanan, the man whose inaction laid the foundation for the Civil War? As abusive of executive authority and the constitution as Andrew Jackson? As evilly caught up in racial tensions as any of the presidents that carried out the massacres of the Indians, or even FDR, the man who put every Japanese American in the country in internment camps? For the love of God, man, come to your senses.
I'm not going to sit here and say that he's been a good president, because he hasn't. It's hard to make the argument that he's been a decent president. But he is not, by any means, the worst in history, and to say so is to exaggerate in the same way that so many pundits do, further driving the polarization and the demonization of the other side that is ripping this country to shreds.
For the last five years, I have watched you make post after post and start thread after thread where you throw out these half-baked articles that masquerade as "journalism" from all these grassroots, far right-wing media organizations that come across normal day-to-day operations that are just part of governing, and think they've stumbled onto the next great clue Barack Obama's plot to take over the world, never bothering to even try to get some kind of opinion from someone with actual experience in governing to add context to whatever it is they're reporting on because all they want to do is jump to conspiratorial conclusions. And do you know why they're doing that?
*NEWSFLASH*: Because They Want To P*ss People Like You Off, So You'll Go To The Polls And Vote For Whoever They Tell You To Vote For
More shock!
Seriously, how do you think we end up with crap like this?
Do you think this is just coincidence? Or do you think this is the tactic of people who have turned phrases like "establishment" and "RINO" into dirty words they can use to slander elected officials who haven't really done anything wrong, but just don't go along with the hard right on every single issue?
Do you actually believe that there's some great benefit to you, or any other average person, if the Republican establishment up and crumbles in the middle of this election? Do you think that's somehow going to make it harder on the Democrats?
Do you actually think the people who are leading you down this path, spewing all this rhetoric and fomenting all this anger, are somehow on your side? Do you think they really have your interests at heart? Or is it really in their interest to take over an entire party and destroy the establishment political players, and they're just using you as a willing dupe?
Let's forget about Donald Trump for a minute and take your conservative messiah, smitty. Ted Cruz. Do you actually think he's as anti-amnesty as he says he is? Do you really believe a guy who...
SPECIFICALLY WORKED FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON THE 2006 IMMIGRATION REFORM PACKAGE THAT INCLUDED AMNESTY
... is now all of the sudden against it? Do you believe a man who...
IS ON VIDEO ADVOCATING FOR A PATH TO LEGALIZED CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE
... is really as anti-immigration as he's telling you he is? Do you believe a man who...
LITERALLY CHANGED HIS VOTE ON AN EXPENSIVE CROP INSURANCE BILL IN THE MIDDLE OF ROLL CALL ON THE SENATE FLOOR BECAUSE HE WAS REMINDED ABOUT THE IOWA PRIMARY
... is really as committed to fiscal conservatism and budget reform as he says he is?
Does that sound like "consistent" conservatism to you? Or does it sound like someone's spoon-feeding you things you like hearing, and doing something totally different behind your back?
But the worst part of this isn't that you're buying this rhetoric and blindly following the people who are spreading it, it's that you're helping them spread it around and pull off this whole gimmick. You've let yourself get so caught up in all the anger and the bluster that you're furthering it. Every time you post one of those articles or deliver yet another rhetorical one-liner, you're helping move people one step further along down that path anger, and hatred, and blind political rage.
But hey, you know what? That's fine. I really don't care at this point. Honestly, I find it funny, because while you're pushing this narrative along with your other super conservative buddies so y'all can try and get this...
... all you're doing is stoking the flames of anger, making sure that more GOP voters sign up to nominate this...
... which is just gonna end up buying us four years of this.
I just hope you finally learn your lesson when it happens.
WOW! Bigger is supposed to be better? Not! LOL!! Any way, Carter was the worst President until obama showed up. Listening to Newt Gingrich I have a better feeling about Trump (but still not totally convinced). But, there's no doubt that Cruz could beat hillarious. Again, with Ford, Dole, McCain and Romney, we tried the mushy middle (establisment) and that didn't work.
-
1 hour ago, PN-G bamatex said:
The establishment was also behind the both Bushes, Nixon and Eisenhower. And when Bush 41 ran the second time, and when Dole ran, it was against a Clinton.
It's kind of peculiar how half insane billionaires have a way of popping up in the Republican primary and threatening to run third party every single time there's a Clinton in the race and stiff establishment competition on the Republican side, isn't it?
But hey, what do I know? I'm just some dumb college kid, remember? I didn't spend four years studying this or anything.
Y'all go ahead and keep marching to your political graves. We'll see how you feel come November.
Bush 1 lost after not acting like Reagan. Eisenhower was a war hero. Nixon, well, we know how that turned out. 2nd Bush, well, barely won, but did. Didn't do much for controlling the size of government. Putting up candidates just to put them up thinking they could win, well if they do, then what have you accomplished? Heck, Nixon gave us the EPA.
It was really sad when the establishment's choice, Romney, couldn't even beat the worst President in history. Again, not sure what's accomplished when/if they win.
- Tigers2010 and Englebert
-
2
-
5 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:
The "establishment" was behind the candidate that could win. Mark my words, Donald Trump cannot and will not win the presidency of the United States.
The establishment was behind Dole, McCain and Romney. How did that work out for them? BTW -- the establishment was also against Reagan! LOL!!
-
obama: Capitalism, Communism, Socialism: No Difference!
in Political Forum
Posted
Why socialism fails. In the article it states that there has been a, " resurgence of socialism, especially as it is now being embraced by young Americans..." Since there's not much teaching on the evils of socialism and communism, the kids nowadays think that socialism means that everybody's social -- you know, nice to one and other. But, when the leader of the free world states there is no difference between Capitalism, socialism, and communism, well, what do you expect?! Heaven help us!!