No. NO. And again, NOOO! Not Palin...it would be a media circus.
Huckabee won the Iowa caucus in 2008 and he later went to split the vote between Romney and McCain.
There are last word 17 Republicans that are considering running; she is but one.
But I concede that her negative numbers are high compared to other candidates. Her name recognition though is up there with Obama's - SNL made sure of that :-P
Beside don't you want to see more of Tina Fey? I think she did a great job.
But the gorilla in the room is really if Hillary will run or wait til 2012 when she'll be 65.
There are last word 17 Republicans that are considering running; she is but one.
But I concede that her negative numbers are high compared to other candidates. Her name recognition though is up there with Obama's - SNL made sure of that :-P
Beside don't you want to see more of Tina Fey? I think she did a great job.
But the gorilla in the room is really if Hillary will run or wait til 2012 when she'll be 65.
Not interesting at all tbh ... these reports are tailor made to portray a specific result, you could even make it so that 100% of the world had the same views as Palin if you asked them the "right" questions ...Harmor wrote:
This is interesting:
52% of Voters Say Their Views Are More Like Palin’s Than Obama’s
Looks like this will be a Ruling Class vs. Country Class election!
They are constructed reports to bait people like you Harmor that read glossy magazins rather than the political statements of the political party you blindly follow ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
and you blindly follow the opposite of what he posts
yawn
or maybe you would rather follow the bbc who does such hard hitting stories as how many women find obama attractive.
yawn
or maybe you would rather follow the bbc who does such hard hitting stories as how many women find obama attractive.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-09-22 01:22:34)
He's right though. Polls like that are tailored fluff.
I'm more concerned with the content than the wrapping ... I never base my opinions in any field on one source alone, I never let the charisma of a politician outweigh the actual topic being discussed ...11 Bravo wrote:
and you blindly follow the opposite of what he posts
yawn
or maybe you would rather follow the bbc who does such hard hitting stories as how many women find obama attractive.
I don't blindly follow anything ... except maybe Mountain Dew ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Why are you definding harmor/h/j all of the sudden lol?11 Bravo wrote:
and you blindly follow the opposite of what he posts
yawn
or maybe you would rather follow the bbc who does such hard hitting stories as how many women find obama attractive.
And wow the bbc have done stories that aren't real news but entertainment news. Oh noez they must be a bad source!
It's because he blindly follows the opposite of what I postjord wrote:
Why are you definding harmor/h/j all of the sudden lol?11 Bravo wrote:
and you blindly follow the opposite of what he posts
yawn
or maybe you would rather follow the bbc who does such hard hitting stories as how many women find obama attractive.
yawn
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I didn't feel the need to address the rest of the post but this is completely unrealistic.jG@lt wrote:
We're separated by two oceans from anything that is remotely a threat, either today or tomorrow. It's rather easy to track shipping and no country in the world has enough shipping to invade us.
Invading us would be like invading China. It just wouldn't work.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I didn't feel the need to address the rest of the post but this is completely unrealistic.jG@lt wrote:
We're separated by two oceans from anything that is remotely a threat, either today or tomorrow. It's rather easy to track shipping and no country in the world has enough shipping to invade us.
Now, terror attacks are clearly a different matter.
So I guess the polls must be lying too with Obama's approval rating in the low 40s? Or perhaps its only the polls that don't follow your dogma that are labeled fluff?
Or perhaps every poll from Rasmussen should be considered fluff? What about Gallop? Or CBS? MSNBC? Fox News?
Any of those polls you'll agree with?
Or perhaps every poll from Rasmussen should be considered fluff? What about Gallop? Or CBS? MSNBC? Fox News?
Any of those polls you'll agree with?
QFFEJohnG@lt wrote:
No one likes paying taxes Harmor. I would love them abolished completely if it were feasible. I would love the government to be shrunk down to a minimal level. It's not going to happen so what I'm presenting to you is reality instead of my ideal stylized world. My ideal world will never exist. I accept that. So I have to take into account the fact that people in this country don't want Social Security to go away, they don't want Medicare to go away. They've planned their lives around the fact that it will exist one day for them to use and you can't pull the rug out from under them now. So be it.
Because I live in the really real world and not some mythical small government world, I understand and accept that taxes have to be maintained at a certain level in order for us not to fall off a cliff economically and financially. It's called being fiscally prudent. Running deficits in order to save people a few thousand dollars on their tax receipts should never be the goal. That's just kicking the can down the road for another generation to get stuck paying the bill. I'm six months short of thirty years old and what I see ahead of me is a lifetime of paying other peoples debts, debts that exist because they didn't want to pay the taxes necessary to fund their lifestyle. Faced with default and/or hyperinflation, my generation doesn't have the ability to kick the can. We're stuck. Frankly, we should be trying to fleece the babyboomers for as much as we can now before they saunter off into a retirement they never paid for, but for which I will be stuck with the bill.
Is Obama and the Democrat party a bunch of economic fools? Yes, but so are the Republicans. Combined, they've done a very good job of diminishing the future prosperity of this nation while saddling it with crushing tax burdens in the future.
This is your opinion and not everyone shares it.You missed the entire point of his post. You've shown yourself to be as dumb as a fence post. Not only do you not possess the skill of forming complete sentences and paragraphs, you inter-space them with seemingly random bold and italicized words. Frankly, its hard to get past your formatting most of the time and then when I do bother to make the effort, I'm left wondering why I did. Between the ill formed thoughts intermixed with regurgitated telephone-game-esque mantras I haven't seen a single post that contained rational thought. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response are you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."JohnG@lt wrote:
: Reagan was a tool
I know its now the fad to say " Oh The U.S.S.R. collapsed under its own weight ! ", but that's not what happened. Ask Gorbachev for instance. He said that " Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union. It was his design and policies. The U.S.S.R. is gone and we are all better off. No one mourns the U.S.S.R.'s loss. But while they thrived the left cheered them on, aided and abetted them.
Trickle down economics was basically the Kennedy tax plan. First it was Called Reaganomics and you were supposed to laugh when you said it. When it started to work it was just called the Recovery.I know I was there. America did well. The deficit grew but the GNP was out pacing it. It was expensive to shut down the Evil Empire. Accept for a few twisted scum, No one wants it back at any price. Including you I am guessing.JohnG@lt wrote:
So was Reaganomics
Were were in an arms race with the USSR which was expanding its sphere of influence rapidly. With 20 20 hind sight you can say things like They lost in Afghanistan but it didn't look that way at the time. We almost had to invoke the Monroe doctrine. Reagan defeated the soviets in Afghanistan Not some goat herders, committed and brave though they were. Part of the problem there now is the democrats bailed and wouldn't follow up with reconstruction money, So al qeuda and the like filled the vacant power structure, Their still a better deal than the U.S.S.R.JohnG@lt wrote:
especially his focus on military spending.
Actually using an existing weapons system ( a battleship ) and sticking a missile on it was an excellent and cost saving idea. Also at the time of the HMS Sheffield's sinking surface Navies were looking less than potent. The New Jersey could shrug of Exocet[sp] missiles all day long. Our enemies knew that then. There wasn't a lot then or now that could effectively oppose it. Our enemies feared it. That says a lotJohnG@lt wrote:
You know that national debt we have? Well, the treasury bonds he floated thirty years ago to pay for since mothballed battleships to be upgraded into missile cruisers, are coming due now.
Right ! a convicted felon put that there. He stole millions so they fined him 200k if Im not mistaken. Big supporter of gun control too. altruistic soul that he is.JohnG@lt wrote:
That debt clock that's sitting outside of Penn Station in Manhattan?
I call that a good investment. Reagan's spending ended the cold war which soaked up almost 1/3 of our economy for almost 40 years.When the USSR fell we no longer had to spend 1/3 of or economy on War footing. Yes a few defense plants cut back and it caused a Minni recession which was over blown to get Bush one out off office with a little help from Ross Perot. But people that work for a living, Engineers and such are not Parasites and they eventually found work again without a $10x9th stimulus package. With the defense budget reduced It set up the stage for clinton to actually wipe out the deficit, How did he do it ? for the first time since 1939 our nation wasn't on war footing, Say thanks Ronnie Reagan !JohnG@lt wrote:
it exists because of Reagan and his spending.
we actually had a surplus. It was worth it to prevent a nuclear war. Bill me !
Not true at all. A rising tide lifts all boats. Times were so good the Security company I worked for during college couldn't even find people to work. If they didn't show up they got raises till they did. How about the Low gas prices that Reagan arranged with the Saudis to help destroy the U.S.S.R. ? Oil exports at the time had been the number one export and source of income for the U.S.S.R. At the prices arranged they would have had to sell theirs at a loss. Low priced fuel helped our economy just as hi priced fuel cripples it. For the record what political coup preceded the oil prices tripling in the USA ? But since you mention it. Junk bonds High yield bonds Are Actually called " Corporate Bonds " because they are usually start up new company your taking a risk, They usually have high return rates lure the investor in since a new company with no record represents an unknown risk. In a thriving economy you might be willing to take a risk that a new company will do well. Would any smart person buy a high yield bond in today's economy with a possibility of obama for six more years ? People trusted Reagan and it payed off.JohnG@lt wrote:
The tax cuts in the 80s weren't the prime mover in the economy, Michael Milken and Lewis Ranieri pushed the 80s economy
How did you ever come to this conclusion this is naive and a academic over simplification and its completely unfounded by any information I ever was aware of. Most of our overseas deployments have been humanitarian anyway.JohnG@lt wrote:
This leads into point #2. Having a strong military leads to its use overseas.
I cant believe I have to say this.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why do we need a military larger than what is necessary to defend our borders?
In the days of the bow and arrow you kept a field cut short around you place so no one could get within a range about 50 yards ( that's where the front lawn concept came from) with the advent of the ballista, trabuche, catapult[sp]. You needed a bigger field preferable with water in the periphery of range so the weapon couldn't be deployed. Ideally they had to cross the water and try and set the weapon up while in range of the fortifications defences. Weapon ranges increased some since than. snicker Missiles can cross the poles oceans etc. Break down carefully the contraction ICBM inter Continental Balletic Missile. If you don't want to send one ICBM to get another you may have to than send a plane soldier helicopter If you only suspect an ICBM and it hidden from satellite you may have to send etc. You do realize the USA has interest that are over seas only 48 states are continental. we have the right to and must actively protect commerce on the high seas, did you forget about that? If you want to leave the muslims in Croatia hanging that's OK with me but not everyone will agree.
we did get a return it was called peace. Not to mention money spent on a deterrent weapons system gets back into the economy They hire a worker he buys a house the builder buys a bout the boat yard guy can buy an new VCR( the 80s ) so the Video store expands and hires ~ Simple.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why should we waste money on something we'll never get a return on?
People that worked for me shoveling poop and cleaning horses were buying new cars in 84 ( Geo Trackers & Isuzu Amigo's though )
Sad ! OK by that logic neither is a smoke alarm if you never have a fire. Both have preventative deterrent value. Technology favors the attacker and as technology advances it may not be possible to re arm and prepare after a sudden well planned strike.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's certainly not an investment.
and the people who stay safe and protected by it, Reduction in armament was a direct cause of WWII. The Japanese and Germans thought that could achieve their goals before we rearmed and got on war footing " To insure peace prepare for war." some roman guy.JohnG@lt wrote:
The only people that benefit are the defense industry who live off the government tit and suck away far more than welfare moms.
Nice, like you do ? Who made you the authority. I tell you nothing slowed down the classroom more the the petulant child who thought he knew more than the teacher ( cough ). How many people had to sit through an extra hour of " the 3 hour motor vehicle course " because some moron (your term) had to add his " how not wearing seat belts saved my life ! "storyJohnG@lt wrote:
You don't even know what limited government is
Lets see if we have 100 units of government of which 10 are military, 30 being Tax collectors and 60 being Senate staff. Increasing the military to 15 reducing the Tax collectors to 25 and senate staff to 55 still adds up to more than 100 by your math ? looks like a way to increase M while decreasing GJohnG@lt wrote:
. You want to keep a strong military, which is part of the government and necessarily makes it bigger
I didn't read this anywhere but your post, check your bread for mold maybe !JohnG@lt wrote:
. You want to expand government by turning it into a ministry.
like the two are mutually exclusive ? Do you even have a valid point ?JohnG@lt wrote:
You want low taxes, but again, you want a strong military
Welfare, Govermet housing, Government assistance to the arts, The IRS the senate and Congressional staff, expense accounts, Private jets for senators, shall we continue ?JohnG@lt wrote:
What should be cut?
We are losing that already and they are treating it like its their money. It is ours They took it from us under the delusion that the government could plan a retirement plan and system better than an individual. It would have been better if they never took and squandered the money in the first place. Now think about Government run health care. That ! they can handle without a problem ? ? what makes people think that ? Their track record ? .JohnG@lt wrote:
Are you going to say 'oh, sorry, you paid into Medicare and Social Security all your life but we're going to cut the program now, worry about your own retirement'.
Yes it is When 1% is millions and millions of dollars that end up in the coffers of some ones campaign fund. Since rape is only 10 percent of crime Why go after rapist ? Tax cheats are the most prevalent crime lets go after last one of them them first ! yea you make sense.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh, I know, you'll cut the pork barrel spending that makes up less than 1% of the budget. Always a good target.
You only made a generalization. I didn't move into any town over the school district. I send my kids to private school. Yet I still paid school taxes even when I didn't have kids. School choice would make school competitive, sink or swim. That make for good business. Your the one who said that " public schools suck". Do you want me to find and cut and paste your quote, So your attitude is steady as she goes, just to rant at harmor, Sound like your technique.JohnG@lt wrote:
School choice. Cool. Not very conservative of you though. Generally, people move into a town because they like the school district.
Please grant school choice though, I'll move into a shitty school district with lower property taxes and send my kids to the better school. Win/win for me..
who are you now ? Lloyd Bentsen ? roflmaoJohnG@lt wrote:
Sorry Harmor, but you're no fiscal conservative.
FROM
TOJohnG@lt wrote:
You've got a pretty shitty view of servicemen...
in Les than 24 hours. Duplicity defined. Contrary for the sake of Something to say. In my opinionJohnG@lt wrote:
You clearly never served if you don't think the majority that join are retards that would have no shot at anything but the welfare line in the real world.
Your a loud, foul mouthed, over opinionated, pompous capon. Grow up !
have fun as I didnt proof read or spell check Just took out spaces that hurt peoples eys,
and good bye if this gets me a ban as opinion divergent to heavy left seems to. Consevatives shall not defend themselves. Only crazed libs can swear and make personal attacks here.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-27 14:52:57)
Did anyone read that? I didn't.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Not even Humper/Jumper read it.JohnG@lt wrote:
Did anyone read that? I didn't.
A novel defense of your conviction and position. Whats next, holding your breath ?JohnG@lt wrote:
Did anyone read that? I didn't.
Maybe break up the post into smaller posts so they can demagogue it in smaller pieces.
he answerd your post line by line. Rife with snide remarks. I destroyed his line of reasoning line by line. I offer more examples then he does. That shouldn't surprise anyone when all the time he pouts " I can't understand and I wont read "Harmor wrote:
Maybe break up the post into smaller posts so they can demagogue it in smaller pieces.
You really think that type of attitude just surfaced here, and just a week ago. It probably plagued him all his life. You ever read his stuff ?
" I am smarter than my kindergarten teacher " I will insult anyone who has a different opinion. I can't achieve because its a bad system.
I live in the same place grew up about 5 miles from him. Some how the things that cripple his personality didn't hinder me. I doubt that I am much smarter or better educated. I doubt I had more caring parents. I can play what ever hand I am dealt without blaming others. It should be pretty obvious that some one who has all the answers would shoot to the top anywhere he goes. It doesn't seem to be the case does it.
The little boy who was amazing his stupid teachers by programming in C++ at age 9 doesn't seem to have achieved all that much. If he had, he wouldn't be so sour. Sikorsky Edison Wrights Foss Maxim Ford Krupp Rickenbacker all had set backs and trials. It was their attitudes and persistence that made them achieve. The world is full of brilliant bitter failures. Intelligence is not enough. Pride I can use. Proud people will do something - anything, even if just to prove you wrong. They will try. I don't see pride here, just hatred and overwhelming bitterness and bile. Intelligence will work against you if all you can do is try and lower others. Its wasted effort. I'm am walking behind a pretty little lady - she looked like a cutesy version of my wife, shorter less polish. she was carrying a boy that I guessed to be about my daughters age 2 or so. he seemed shorter. As I got close I observed ~ skinnier too ! hmm? She made a left into a building that had a Green awning with " Ronald McDonald House " on it. I do have it good. I have it very easy.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-28 06:11:47)
H/J I refuse to reply to you simply because I think you are a genuinely stupid person and it would be a complete waste of my time. It's nice to see that I've provoked so much hatred on your part though. I bet you went to bed angry last night. Stop posting so I don't have to spend so much time scrolling past your posts.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i hope she runs in 2012
Tu Stultus Es
she doesn't want a real job, she's just a fame whore.eleven bravo wrote:
i hope she runs in 2012
Thank you burnzz, eleven, for getting this unnecessarily-revived thread back on topic.
sorry . . .
As for Ms. Palin, this thread furthers my point - gainfully employed as the Governor of a state, she voluntarily stepped down to chase wealth and fame. if the grand old party decides she best represents their interests in the next presidential election, they deserve what they get.
McCain didn't sink his chances totally, with me, when he announced Palin in '08 - McCain thoroughly blew it by saying "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" and then suspending the campaign to go to Washington. it wasn't til after that we found Ms. Palin to be a media whore.
As for Ms. Palin, this thread furthers my point - gainfully employed as the Governor of a state, she voluntarily stepped down to chase wealth and fame. if the grand old party decides she best represents their interests in the next presidential election, they deserve what they get.
McCain didn't sink his chances totally, with me, when he announced Palin in '08 - McCain thoroughly blew it by saying "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" and then suspending the campaign to go to Washington. it wasn't til after that we found Ms. Palin to be a media whore.
i cant wait to not vote for her or anyone she attaches her name to
Tu Stultus Es
Step back for a moment and picture this...eleven bravo wrote:
i cant wait to not vote for her or anyone she attaches her name to
Hillary detaches herself from the Obama administration and runs alongside Sarah Palin in a bipartisan ticket. Would you still?