[Hoot Gibson]

We will see. What is it about Romney that gets you passionate, what does he stand for that makes you go gee I should vote for this man? Judging by your statements there is not one policy matter that makes you go wow, I am voting for him. Whereas, Ron Paul has policy that you have said you have agreed with, that is very telling.

Commander-in-Chief is the most important job that a president has. On that one point, I strongly disagree with Ron Paul's tendency to blame America first when it comes to Islamo-fascist terrorism. On downsizing the federal government, slashing government expenditures, reducing regulations and corporate tax rates, and many other issues, I agree with Paul. Aside from his weakness on national security, my biggest problem with Paul is that he is not electable. Part of the reason is his stance on the military but the main reason, IMO, is that he is not a particularly inspiring leader - he is not telegenic, has a crackly voice, etc.

Those things are not particularly important to me, but if a candidate can't produce short, snappy TV ads, he is toast in national politics. The masses have the attention of a third grader but their votes count.

[TheRealThing]

Why do you say that I don't get this... I just contend that 600+ bases is over kill. (1) I feel that the military industrial complex that General Eisnhower warned about has taken over and I think it is over kill.

Nationalizing banks, bailouts of auto industry, bailout of wall street, all on the people's dime, not a private solution.

(2) Which party does this sound like?

Which party did this? Which party had control of the house, senate, and Presidency when this took place?

If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck. It must be a duck.

(1) This is the most powerful statement made by Dwight D Eisenhower in his fairwell address to the nation in 1961. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist". The fear has always been that the military leaders (like Eisenhower), politicians who support them and those who manufacture war machines and ordinance would become too big to govern, and thus, become untouchable by the US government. I believe this is the very reason General George Patton was disciplined as well as General MacArthur, and rightly so. The congress of the United States must maintain control of the US armed services. I believe you are overreaching with your overkill concerns, however. They watch this stuff pretty close in congress.

Now, if you want to see an example of one man fulfilling General Eisenhower's prophesy you might consider studying the true nature of the action Mr Obama took when the US prosecuted an illegal military action against Lybia.

(2) Seriously, did you miss 2009 through 2010? Think of the Wall Street bailout as if it were a standard transmission, if George W had it in first gear when he left office, Obama slammed 2nd, 3rd and 4th as soon as he started "driving the bus". No, what you are talking about to my mind are progressive policies. Progressives inhabit both parties, unfortunately. Progressives preach social justice and economic equality, and stand for social change, social responsibility, equal opportunity, equal rights and the environment. Sounds like something our president said in a recent sound bite doesn't it? Here is what a local chapter of the progressive party boasts on their website; "We are the nation's most successful third party, electing more state legislators than all others combined. We fight for our core principles of social justice and economic equity. We accept no corporate donations, so are free of the big money influence that dominates the other two parties. We run strategically, win elections, and legislate change".

Are you a Woodrow Wilson fan by chance tvtimeout?

[TheRealVille]

Santorum is out.

Rick Santorum ended his improbable run for the White House on Tuesday after leading a Republican tilt to the right that could dog the more moderate front-runner, Mitt Romney, in November's election.
Trailing in polls and fundraising, the conservative former Pennsylvania senator suspended his campaign and cleared the way for Romney to clinch the nomination to face President Barack Obama in the November 6 general election.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/1...DU20120411

[the other guy]

[/B]


Hoot took a shot at me without ever answering the question... maybe you can why should I vote for Romney? What has his actions done to prove that he is a conservative... I know Romney Care, wait he balanced the budget of Mass. No he didn't do that... I know he is a strong moral man...that changes his views as the wind blows...wait "We Report, You Obey" has given me my marching orders, he is the only one that can beat Obama, they said this, they know, I must follow... Republicats here we come...

He's not Obama,that's it....

[tvtimeout]

Commander-in-Chief is the most important job that a president has. On that one point, I strongly disagree with Ron Paul's tendency to blame America first when it comes to Islamo-fascist terrorism. On downsizing the federal government, slashing government expenditures, reducing regulations and corporate tax rates, and many other issues, I agree with Paul. Aside from his weakness on national security, my biggest problem with Paul is that he is not electable. Part of the reason is his stance on the military but the main reason, IMO, is that he is not a particularly inspiring leader - he is not telegenic, has a crackly voice, etc.

Those things are not particularly important to me, but if a candidate can't produce short, snappy TV ads, he is toast in national politics. The masses have the attention of a third grader but their votes count.

Who put the allotallah in power?

[tvtimeout]

He's not Obama,that's it....

but neither is ron paul

[tvtimeout]

(1) This is the most powerful statement made by Dwight D Eisenhower in his fairwell address to the nation in 1961. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist". The fear has always been that the military leaders (like Eisenhower), politicians who support them and those who manufacture war machines and ordinance would become too big to govern, and thus, become untouchable by the US government. I believe this is the very reason General George Patton was disciplined as well as General MacArthur, and rightly so. The congress of the United States must maintain control of the US armed services. I believe you are overreaching with your overkill concerns, however. They watch this stuff pretty close in congress.

Now, if you want to see an example of one man fulfilling General Eisenhower's prophesy you might consider studying the true nature of the action Mr Obama took when the US prosecuted an illegal military action against Lybia.

(2) Seriously, did you miss 2009 through 2010? Think of the Wall Street bailout as if it were a standard transmission, if George W had it in first gear when he left office, Obama slammed 2nd, 3rd and 4th as soon as he started "driving the bus". No, what you are talking about to my mind are progressive policies. Progressives inhabit both parties, unfortunately. Progressives preach social justice and economic equality, and stand for social change, social responsibility, equal opportunity, equal rights and the environment. Sounds like something our president said in a recent sound bite doesn't it? Here is what a local chapter of the progressive party boasts on their website; "We are the nation's most successful third party, electing more state legislators than all others combined. We fight for our core principles of social justice and economic equity. We accept no corporate donations, so are free of the big money influence that dominates the other two parties. We run strategically, win elections, and legislate change".

Are you a Woodrow Wilson fan by chance tvtimeout?

1. I disagree with what Pres. Obama did and our involvement in Egypt.
2. Follow the money as they say and that is my concern when it comes to military industrial complex.
3. Are you saying that "well yeah we bailed out wall street but it wasn't as bad as that guy over there"? A bailout is still a bailout and I for one believe in a free open market that is privatized. Do you believe in this or in some mixed version of this?
4. I like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

[TheRealThing]

1. I disagree with what Pres. Obama did and our involvement in Egypt.
2. Follow the money as they say and that is my concern when it comes to military industrial complex.
3. Are you saying that "well yeah we bailed out wall street but it wasn't as bad as that guy over there"? A bailout is still a bailout and I for one believe in a free open market that is privatized. Do you believe in this or in some mixed version of this?
4. I like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Sorry tvtimeout, conversation R us, U ain't.

[tvtimeout]

Sorry tvtimeout, conversation R us, U ain't.

I am sorry: what does this mean? Is this the response to the questions that I asked?

[tvtimeout]

Also just a quick question, you like Hitler or Mussolini?

[Bob Seger]

^

Here's a quick response back for ya.


You're one waaay out there cat. With every single valid point you come up with , you cancel out with one quick burst of idiocy from out of nowhere. For some reason the word Moron is the first thing that comes to my mind.

[TheRealThing]

^LOL, I was trying to hold off from just puttting it out there Seger.

[tvtimeout]

why, what is wrong saying that the military industrial complex is part of the errosion of freedom? I know "we report you obey" dictates that you must hold party line, because they are the party line...right.

[TheRealVille]

At least Santorum is out, and we are not one step closer to a "church state".

[TheRealThing]

http://www.military.com/news/article/201...-fire.html

"A large cross put up by Marines at Camp Pendleton, Calif. to honor fallen comrades is under fire by an atheist group who says the sanctioning of the religious symbol reinforces the idea that Christianity has a privileged place in the American military."

You really think the USA is in any imminent danger of becoming a "church state"? Christianity is under attack in our country to a degree that couldn't have been imagined only a decade ago. There are so many 'eyes' out there on patrol, ever on the lookout for any reference to God, which may have been made by any organization even loosely associated with government so that they may file a complaint, it's truly unbelievable. This is the result of the misrepresentations made by liberals of the true intent of the doctrine of the seperation of church and state. It's both destructive to our land and a national shame. I mean, marines give their life for their country and you got bozo's like this raising sand about a cross, unbelievable.

[TheRealVille]

http://www.military.com/news/article/201...-fire.html

"A large cross put up by Marines at Camp Pendleton, Calif. to honor fallen comrades is under fire by an atheist group who says the sanctioning of the religious symbol reinforces the idea that Christianity has a privileged place in the American military."

You really think the USA is in any imminent danger of becoming a "church state"? Christianity is under attack in our country to a degree that couldn't have been imagined only a decade ago. There are so many 'eyes' out there on patrol, ever on the lookout for any reference to God, which may have been made by any organization even loosely associated with government so that they may file a complaint, it's truly unbelievable. This is the result of the misrepresentations made by liberals of the true intent of the doctrine of the seperation of church and state. It's both destructive to our land and a national shame. I mean, marines give their life for their country and you got bozo's like this raising sand about a cross, unbelievable.

From your link:

Jason Torpy, a West Point graduate, Iraq veteran and now head of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, said he understands why the Pendleton Marines want to honor their fellow Marines, but that a cross on the base is not appropriate.
"In a lot of ways this is commendable – they're honoring friends who were probably Christian," he told Military.com. "I think the memorial is appropriate for the individuals who put it up and the friends they're honoring, but you just can't walk onto federal land and do it."
Torpy said MAAF does not usually get involved in these kinds of issues, but that he has several members who are Marines serving at Pendleton and has been contacted by them to respond. He also said the Pendleton cross is just the latest in a string of such memorials placed on federal lands.
""My response, my ‘dirty duty' here is to say I appreciate you want to honor your friends in the manner of your religion … but this is a Christian monument and it's on federal land. And that privileges one religion over another," he said.
Torpy said the problem is that Pendleton officials did not prohibit the cross being put up.
"I hate to be a bad guy on this, but I should not have to be the one standing up," he said. "[Camp Pendleton} should have known better."

[tvtimeout]

http://www.military.com/news/article/201...-fire.html

"A large cross put up by Marines at Camp Pendleton, Calif. to honor fallen comrades is under fire by an atheist group who says the sanctioning of the religious symbol reinforces the idea that Christianity has a privileged place in the American military."

You really think the USA is in any imminent danger of becoming a "church state"? Christianity is under attack in our country to a degree that couldn't have been imagined only a decade ago. There are so many 'eyes' out there on patrol, ever on the lookout for any reference to God, which may have been made by any organization even loosely associated with government so that they may file a complaint, it's truly unbelievable. This is the result of the misrepresentations made by liberals of the true intent of the doctrine of the seperation of church and state. It's both destructive to our land and a national shame. I mean, marines give their life for their country and you got bozo's like this raising sand about a cross, unbelievable.

If the marine was christian I have no problem with his personal memorial having a cross. However, if the base had a cross on it, I would not want it there, on the person himself, no problem. I would also have a problem with a satanic symbol being put on the military base, a jewish sign. Individually no, but I would not want my tax money to support any of those items of course I would also shut half of those bases, just like I got rid of my earthquake insurance. I figure that it was overkill.

[TheRealThing]

From your link:

You don't imagine this--- "head of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers", has anything to do with his opinion on the matter do ya? You work hard to ignore the thrust of the actual article, obviously there are two sides of this issue. The point was, the notion of a church state is ludacris.

[Hoot Gibson]

[/B]


Hoot took a shot at me without ever answering the question... maybe you can why should I vote for Romney? What has his actions done to prove that he is a conservative... I know Romney Care, wait he balanced the budget of Mass. No he didn't do that... I know he is a strong moral man...that changes his views as the wind blows...wait "We Report, You Obey" has given me my marching orders, he is the only one that can beat Obama, they said this, they know, I must follow... Republicats here we come...

I should have corrected the bolded statement earlier but better late than never. Romney balanced the budget every year that he was governor of Massachusetts. He raised user fees to balance the budgets but he complied with state law in doing so. Apparently, the Paul campaign has fed you some inaccurate talking points.

[vector]

[attachment=o2509]

[attachment=o2510]

[attachment=o2511]

[attachment=o2512]

[vector]

1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush’s last budget oct 2008 to oct 2009 had
a $1.416 trillion deficit.
Obama’s first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion.

2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the “stimulus” was wasted
on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so
much less effective than it could have been.

3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the “stimulus” with
the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by
President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs
CEO Henry Paulson.
(Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be “non-reviewable by any court or any agency.”)
The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.

4) The stimulus didn’t work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough.
In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office,
the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.

5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees
to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business
to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will
find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is “going broke,” people live longer,
fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust
fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and
cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit
(compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only
longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about
the same number of years as they used to.

8*) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on
We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that
builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things
that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that
all government spending is on “welfare” and “foreign aid” when that is
only a small part of the government’s budget.

[Hoot Gibson]

1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush’s last budget oct 2008 to oct 2009 had
a $1.416 trillion deficit.
Obama’s first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion.

2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the “stimulus” was wasted
on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so
much less effective than it could have been.

3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the “stimulus” with
the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by
President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs
CEO Henry Paulson.
(Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be “non-reviewable by any court or any agency.”
The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.

4) The stimulus didn’t work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough.
In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office,
the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.

5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees
to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business
to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will
find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is “going broke,” people live longer,
fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust
fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and
cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit
(compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only
longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about
the same number of years as they used to.

8*) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on
We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that
builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things
that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that
all government spending is on “welfare” and “foreign aid” when that is
only a small part of the government’s budget.

Would the man who slammed me for posting direct quotes of Eric Holder praising Al Sharpton from the National Review, care to divulge which of the many liberal blogs that he consulted to copy and paste the above "facts?" Or did you receive the list in a chain email? Have you no shame, man? nicker:

[vector]

I'm glad you agree with my post that these are the true fact's

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm glad you agree with my post that these are the true fact's

By my count, the list that you posted, the author of which you gave no credit, appears on at least 77 left wing web sites. It is hilarious that you plagiarized this list after criticizing me for posting an entry from NRO. It's not my job to substantiate your claims for you - it's yours. Giving credit to the author of "your" opinion is the least that you can do. :hilarious:

[vector]

what's false in my post

[Hoot Gibson]

what's false in my post

I have no idea because the source, whatever it may be, has no credibility. You are not the author and are too ashamed to credit the real author - if you even have a clue about who wrote "your" list, so I have to conclude that you cannot possibly vouch for the accuracy of the claims in your (and I use that term loosely) own post. I am not going to research the accuracy of a list of left wing talking points for you. Do your own research.

[vector]

you mean to tell me there's something you don't KNOW

[Hoot Gibson]

you mean to tell me there's something you don't KNOW

There are many more things that I don't know than I do know. One thing that I do know is that you put very little thought into what you post and prefer cutting and pasting other people's work from left wing blogs. Still don't want to give credit to the author of your talking points, huh? :lame:

Did you even read what you copied and pasted or did you just throw it out there to waste people's time? Those talking points have passed through so many liberal hands, I doubt that anybody can say for sure who wrote them. One thing that I can say for sure is that you did not write them yourself. That would have been too much effort.

[TheRealVille]

There are many more things that I don't know than I do know. One thing that I do know is that you put very little thought into what you post and prefer cutting and pasting other people's work from left wing blogs. Still don't want to give credit to the author of your talking points, huh? :lame:

Did you even read what you copied and pasted or did you just throw it out there to waste people's time? Those talking points have passed through so many liberal hands, I doubt that anybody can say for sure who wrote them. One thing that I can say for sure is that you did not write them yourself. That would have been too much effort.

You have been known to do the same thing with right wing blogs/sites, and not give a link. I have even named it to you before.


Because it came from a liberal site, does that make the post false? Try proving the points in the post wrong, if they are. He posted 8 points. A man of your knowledge should be able to refute the statistics without the need to just slam him for copying it from a website. You copy tons of stuff from website, sometimes without giving credit to the author.

[Hoot Gibson]

You have been known to do the same thing with right wing blogs/sites, and not give a link. I have even named it to you before.

I have never refused to credit the source of anything that I have quoted. Yes, out of my thousands of posts, I have forgotten to post a link a few times but I have always credited the author when the omission has been brought to my attention. Nobody who has made a large number of posts has not made a mistake or two along the way. But it is hypocritical to criticize anybody else's sources and then refuse to cite your own.

Of course, since this is just another liberal being hypocritical, you see no problem with it. You challenging somebody to comment on an unattributed quote is a real laugh. You start threads and refuse to even take a position on your own thread. If you want to substantiate a list of liberal talking points, then go right ahead. I will correct your mistakes when I don't have anything better to do.