One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: crazylibertarian
Page: <<prev 1 ... 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 ... 644 next>>
Jun 8, 2015 18:39:54   #
DamnYANKEE wrote:
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:


I don't quite understand this.
:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
Go to
Jun 8, 2015 07:24:52   #
JMHO wrote:
No Democrats are willing to go on the record with their doubts about Hillary Clinton’s electability – not even the gaggle of hopeless, sad-sack nominal opponents for the nomination. But a shocking potential rival is waiting in the wings.

No Democrats are willing to go on the record with their doubts about Hillary Clinton’s electability – not even the gaggle of hopeless, sad-sack nominal opponents for the nomination: Lincoln “metric system” Chafee, Bernie “socialism now!” Sanders, and Martin “the guy who taxed rain” O’Malley. But a shocking potential rival is waiting in the wings.

The realization is dawning on many in the jackass party that they have an unappealing, gaffe-prone, self-entitled, scandal-ridden presumptive nominee on their hands. I called out the growing subterranean panic three weeks ago. Now with CNN polling revealing movement away from Hillary, the conservative press (here, here, and here, for instance) is joining me in highlighting the panic that the Democrats still fear open mention of.

The problem for the Dems is that their bench is ridiculously thin. Leave aside the joke candidates already in the field, and all they’ve got is Elizabeth Warren, who, for all her socialist rhetoric (and personal profiteering from real estate flipping) and her affirmative action gamesmanship as a phony Native American, is a good talker. But even in deep blue Massachusetts she was unable to deliver a convincing victory in her Senate run. And perhaps knowing about more hypocrisy in her background, she is not anxious at all to throw herself into a run for the White House, with all the scrutiny that would entail.

So is there a knight in shining armor willing to ride in and save the Dems? Michael Goodwin of the New York Post (hat tip: Powerline) has a fascinating report of what may be going on hidden from the public (for now):

…now comes word of a bid to entice another big-name challenger, and this one is far more intriguing.

It aims to get former Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the race.

New York Dems friendly to Bloomberg have approached him to gauge his interest. Their argument is that Clinton’s vulnerability with general-e******n v**ers, especially independents, could result in a Republican president. They also believed Bloomberg could be interested because, as one of them told me,“Mike can’t stand Hillary.”

One visitor to the former mayor came away cautiously optimistic after a 30-minute meeting, noting that Bloomberg didn’t throw him out of the office or start fiddling with his smartphone.

“That means he wasn’t bored and was listening,” said another man who talked to the three-term mayor. They were also encouraged that Bloomberg said something to the effect that it would be “no problem” for him to drop his unaffiliated registration and become a Democrat again.

Bloomberg has an enormous ego and a hunger to tell other people how to live their lives. He also the kind of wealth (estimated at $36 billion) that makes self-financing a p**********l campaign no problem at all. Goodwin makes the case:

His strengths would be considerable, substantively and politically. His astonishing business success and record as a bold, can-do mayor in America’s largest city could appeal to v**ers of all persuasions.

He is socially liberal, being pro-choice, an early advocate for gay marriage and a relentless supporter of more gun control. He’s also a security hawk who supported the Iraq invasion, and was religious about keeping New York safe from crime and terrorism. Indeed, crime rates fell to historic lows under him, a record that burdens his hapless successor.

Bloomberg also believes in pay-as-you-go government, once arguing to me that he is a true conservative because he will raise taxes to provide services the public wants. He talks with conviction about big ideas like public health and infrastructure.

His most glaring weakness is that he lacks foreign-policy experience at a time when the world is on fire. However, Bloomberg is far from parochial, as both his business and philanthropy span the globe.

He’s a wooden campaigner, but there’s an easy answer for that: The incumbent is charismatic, and look at the mess he made! Blanketing the country with TV ads can cover a lot of sins.


Stand by. This could get extremely interesting. Hillary would not react well to a challenge from a former Republican, no matter how nominal. And if Dick Morris is to be believed, she does not harbor kind feelings toward Jews, especially those whose wealth dwarfs hers and who did not stick it out in an unhappy marriage. Hillary plays dirty, and you can expect American Bridge to unearth a lot of secrets from Bloomberg’s private and business life if he moves ahead on this intriguing notion.

Yippee! There’s nothing quite like a steel cage death match involving Hillary with someone who’s smarter and richer than she is.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/the_panic_that_dare_not_speak_its_name_hillary_looks_like_a_loser_to_dems.html#ixzz3cNjW0yqt
b No Democrats are willing to go on the record wi... (show quote)



I have been saying for months, maybe years, that Hillary will not win in 2016 and for a time less than that, that she will not be the nominee. Elizabeth Warren is the likely alternative. A thorough-going marxist, Warren will represent the ultimate in current Democratic policies and PERHAPS, that will be the wake-up call to the country and the Democratic constituency.


:) :!: :D :!: :-o :-) :-) :-D : :D
Go to
Jun 7, 2015 18:47:43   #
Flowers turn to fruit.

Fruit leaves its seeds on the ground.

Seeds grow to flowers.

:?: :D :D :D :?: :?: :D :D :D :?:

Sorry for the mispell in the subject line!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Go to
Jun 6, 2015 19:37:43   #
badbobby wrote:
I like it Rod
give us more
I would rather laugh than discuss politics :thumbup: :thumbup:


Thanks. I haven't worked any poetry in a long time but I may start again.

You should check into the double dactyl though. It's an interesing format.
Go to
Jun 6, 2015 17:02:16   #
There's a book entitled, In the Palm of Your Hand, a teaching book for various poetry forms. I was using it to learn to write poetry and at the time of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I was reading the section on the double dactyl.

The double dactyl was used in the early part of the nineteenth century to skewer politicians. I came up with this. I hope you like it.

Clinton. Shminton. William J. Clinton.
She says they did it.
He says oh not.

Slick's got a problem.
Spermatogenesis.
Slicky forgot.
Her dress has that spot.
Go to
Jun 4, 2015 18:51:43   #
Bad Bob wrote:
:lol: :lol:


Too true. Too true.

:lol: :-D :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Go to
Jun 4, 2015 08:18:51   #
IF (again, another big if) the Republicans nominated a man of principle like Robert Taft, ("Damn the poloitics.") it could happen. The only Taft-like men are Rand Paul & maybe Ted Cruz.
Go to
Jun 4, 2015 06:20:58   #
LAPhil wrote:
Hardly. If the Republicans had any backbone they would stop Obama more often when he tries to have his own way. As it is he gets
it because they never seem to have the guts to stand up to him.


I don't want another Republican who promises us to make government more efficient. The road to hell doesn't need more efficient automobiles; it needs the road destroyed. Repeal EPA, OSHA, EEOC, FDA & the myriad other alphabet agenices with no specific constitutional authorization.
Go to
Jun 4, 2015 06:17:37   #
jelun wrote:
I agree with you and I am 100% incorrect?
And conservatives wonder why the world doesn't work the way you want.




:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

It was your first sentence. And progressives wonder why coservatives accuse them of distortion? No matter what statement we make progressives will distort it into somethng else. Check back in this thread.
:thumbup: :thumbdown: :?: :thumbup: :thumbdown: :?:
Go to
Jun 3, 2015 20:17:35   #
jelun wrote:
No, it doesn't.
We can, and do, support each other without the government being involved.
Some people don't understand that, which is why when I mentioned socialist societies some people couldn't understand what I was talking about. They can't get past thinking about government control.
However, when there are hard times there just isn't enough coordination ability to help everyone.
Organization and accountability [and profit] are a problem.


I have no problem with people voluntarily helping each other; I have a huge problem with being required to do it. And what youj just wrote is not a rebuttal of my point. You are 100% incorrect with your first sentence.
Go to
Jun 3, 2015 14:40:56   #
jelun wrote:
Could you explain how that would work?


It's simple economics. Even some Keynesians accept that people having more money will spend it or invest it which expand the economy. Not everything has to be done by government.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Go to
Jun 3, 2015 13:33:38   #
Alicia wrote:
*****************
If socialistic ideas are wrong, why are Social Security, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, etc. such bad ideas? Many, many people in these USA would be on the streets starving were it not for this help. If you're against them, don't utilize them. You will have to keep donating toward them through your taxes because they are already part of the tax laws. Is the 3% difference from the 47% to half of the population the majority?


This statement assumes that in the absence of those programs, all other things would be the same, a very dubious assumption. If the money for them were plowed back into the economy, the expansion of the economy would likely take care of a lot of the problems. In fact, many of the problems have resulted from those programs in the first place.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Go to
Jun 3, 2015 13:26:18   #
America Only wrote:
You should have dropped that mirror....if you supported Barry Boi, that makes you one of the elite....i***ts of the century. Of course you being a socialist pig already takes you to the head of that line.

TRUE to form, as much as you h**e freedom, you should move to any other Nation that believes in the hog wash you do, and does not support freedom.

In fact you totally insult any American that has served this Nation.


It would be much better to not deteriorate into such name calling. If a man's ideas are socialist, call them just that & nothing more. Ditto c*******ts, f*****t, etc. Name calling does nothng for the debate.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Go to
Jun 3, 2015 07:06:32   #
jelun wrote:
He does not run as a Democrat. He is listed as Independent.
Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I see no difference between Republicans, TEA Party members, rightie independents and Satan.




The C*******t Party of the USA (CPUSA) regarded the re-e******n of Barack Obama of huge importance. I just read it recently and if anyone doubts this just do a web search on CPUSA. I do not know if CPUSA endorsed him in 2008 but just the 2012 endorsement tells me a lot.

The following is directly from Karl Marx's Manifesto -

"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and t***sport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. "

I once was part of a group that had primarily, about a dozen, progressives. When challenged to reject a single one of the above planks, only two rejected a single one. When challenged to reject another, not one did. I did this as an academic exercise.

I state with little reservation that few Democrats, liberals, progressives in this country will reject more than one & that if he does, he is likely not a true Democrat, libaral, progressive. This and the endorsement of Barack Obam by CPUSA has convinced me that the Democratic Party is essentially Marxist.

Further, all of these planks are in effect to some degree in this country, leading me to conclude that this country is socialist/c*******t to a great degree.

Unfortunately, the Republicans don't have the gumption to point these things out and would not repeal a single plank anyway. Although I am a Republican, it is only because of Ron Paul's candidacies and I hold no hope out for us. We'll collapse just like the USSR, and with a similar thud.
Go to
Jun 2, 2015 11:53:25   #
saltwind 78 wrote:
Bernie Sanders, the US Senator from Vermont admits he is a socialist. He has a reputation of being absolutely honest and, a crusading champion of liberal causes. I don't know his agenda for American capitalism. He is loved by the people of Vermont.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Yes, Bernie Sanders is a thoroughly honest man and commited socialist.
He sees our economic system as a servant of greedy corporations which in many ways it is. Unfortunately, he doesn't see those corporations for the government created entities they are.

I personally am suspicious of corporations because of they are government created and, as I understand, Adam Smith was opposed to them also. I believe that because they are not human, their decisions aren't really influenced by human emotions which is a vital part of our free market. Without those considerations, I submit that our free market goes out of balance. It's important to realize that both Hitler and Mussolini were socialists as Gorbachev and the Castros.

He sees the solution as governmental correction of results rather than unshackling the free market & finding out where it has been frustrated in its natural corective solutions.

:D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 ... 644 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.