Discuss Detroit » NON-DETROIT ISSUES » 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls « Previous Next »
Archive through February 25, 2009Atwater30 02-25-09  6:00 pm
Archive through March 01, 2009Firstandten30 03-01-09  5:48 am
Archive through March 06, 2009Wally30 03-06-09  10:36 am
Archive through March 11, 2009Flanders_field30 03-11-09  1:11 am
  ClosedNew threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.        

Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 7864
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 6:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nothing better than a good purge to insure total adherence to the orthodoxy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336

Post Number: 8658
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 8:04 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Easy, health care, and a big one...the green movement are huge divergence points that disqualify him from being a true conservative"

so, in other words, anyone with enough intellect to actually think rationally and not just give the knee-jerk ideological argument is disqualified from being a "true conservative"
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4534
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 8:28 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^^^Of course! Because "conserve" has nothing to do with "conservatism", regardless of what that lying bastard Teddy Roosevelt told you.
Top of pageBottom of page

Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni

Post Number: 1391
Registered: 05-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 6:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The first Sarah Palin meet-up held in West Haven, CT. The first meet up for the 2012 Draft Sarah Committee was held Tuesday, March 10th at 6:30 pm in West Haven, CT at the local Denny's restaurant.
http://www.2012draftsarahcommittee.com/

PAC
http://www.sarahpac.com/about/

If Palin successfully emerges in 2012, she'll likely have to lose some of her (arguably sexy) abundant charms in favor of a bit of toughness and political acumen. She won't really be able to justifiably claim unfair treatment in 2012. And simply attracting people with charm alone won't suffice on a long 2012 campaign trail. She could however simply partner with a "strong" figure like was attempted with McCain, which might have worked under different, less dire circumstances.

(Message edited by vetalalumni on March 12, 2009)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitej72
Member
Username: Detroitej72

Post Number: 1323
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 6:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Palin as the Republican nominee in 2012 would be music to Obama's ears. He'll definatly trunce her and all her "you betchas". She might want to actually read some of those magazines she claims to have read but couldn't remember any of their names.

She might also want to divorce her unpatriotic husband and his Alaska sucessionist party. After all we can't have a president who beds around with trators.

And she'll have problems with the religious right now that she appointed a pro-life judge, against the wishes of her main base.

(Message edited by detroitej72 on March 11, 2009)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 7868
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 6:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm guessing by 2012 Palin wil have the same electability as Dan Quayle. Who??
Top of pageBottom of page

20043_stotter
Member
Username: 20043_stotter

Post Number: 827
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 6:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jams, She'll never get the nomination, but I agree I wish she would run against Obama. The vote would be 80% for the dems, 20% for Palin..
Top of pageBottom of page

Flanders_field
Member
Username: Flanders_field

Post Number: 1791
Registered: 01-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 7:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Palin will have to make it through the GOP nomination gauntlet vs other opponents, and the political landscape and the list of declared candidates could be much different in 3 years than it would look now. She would do well to concentrate on keeping her job as governor of AK in 2010.

Being the GOP candidate for VP last fall has not only exposed her to scrutiny by the remainder of the US, but likely has opened some eyes in her own state as well. I have to think that she will receive support from many pro-Palin/Team Sarah fans in the lower 48 in her likely bid for re-election, but her potential opponents may receive some as well, similar to what happened to Michele Bachmann, whose opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg received a groundswell of (too)late support after her infamous anti-American accusations of Obama and members of Congress in a McCarthy-like spiel on Hardball that went viral last fall. Bachmann was very fortunate and narrowly won her reelection.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 19341
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't think Palin has enough experience for the top job. However, she has more than Obama and he....oh...he is ruining the country right now, isn't he?? Never mind.
Top of pageBottom of page

Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni

Post Number: 1396
Registered: 05-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Meghan McCain in 2012!
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 19347
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why?
Top of pageBottom of page

Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni

Post Number: 1397
Registered: 05-2007
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

She is interesting and has a pretty smile.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 19350
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 - 9:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ahhh, that explains Obama
Top of pageBottom of page

Firstandten
Member
Username: Firstandten

Post Number: 775
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:46 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I don't think Palin has enough experience for the top job"


Its about judgement if it was about experience McCain would have won.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 19371
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 8:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Judgment is honed by experience.
Top of pageBottom of page

Firstandten
Member
Username: Firstandten

Post Number: 778
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 11:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Judgment is honed by experience


Not always, if your ideology allows you to keep pounding square pegs into round holes just to prove a point.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4550
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 1:45 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Judgment is honed by experience.



Which makes it even more appalling that someone with McCain's experience continues to make horrifically terrible judgments.

At this point, it really doesn't matter who the GOP throws forward in 2012. They could run Jesus Christ at the head of the ticket, and they'd still only win the Deep South.
Top of pageBottom of page

Flanders_field
Member
Username: Flanders_field

Post Number: 1798
Registered: 01-2008
Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 6:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Weekly Standard associate editor Matthew Continetti's THE PERSECUTION OF SARAH PALIN, a defense of the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate who became an inspirational sensation for her party, only to be unfairly demonized by the media, the Democrats, and her own campaign, was sold to David Moldawer at Sentinel, by Glen Hartley at Writers' Representatives."

The Persecution of Sarah Palin


Looks like yet another budding RW author, like Jonah Goldberg (Liberal Socialists) and Not Joe The Not Plumber wants to cash in on the gullibilty of trash-reading conservative consumers, like Ann Coulter has so succe$$$fully. I wonder if St. Sarah the Grifter will expect to get her cut of the action??

I'll venture a guess that this tome will be placed in the religious fiction section of Barnes & Noble?



Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 6794
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 8:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

... cash in on the gullibilty of trash-reading conservative consumers, like Ann Coulter has so succe$$$fully.

Not so successful lately, according to Olbermann mocks Coulter's falling book sales.
Top of pageBottom of page

Flanders_field
Member
Username: Flanders_field

Post Number: 1799
Registered: 01-2008
Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 9:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Conde Nast Portfolio reports that Ann Coulter’s new book has sold about 100,000 copies while her 2006 book sold about 280,000 but the one before that close to 400,000, just in hardback."

Uh-oh...

Maybe the title of her book: "GUILTY: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America" wasn't vicious enough towards liberals this time. She might even have to show a little more skin on the cover of her next book, for her RW fanboys.

Anyway, judging from the poorly considered positioning and of the dust jacket text sizes and her image, it actually makes it appear like Coulter herself is guilty.







Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 19381
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Friday, March 13, 2009 - 10:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A typical downward trend for that type of material.

She is very offensive to boot. A shame, because the ideas are very valid.
Top of pageBottom of page

Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni

Post Number: 1413
Registered: 05-2007
Posted on Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 10:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ron Paul is consistent and his "let it do what it do" (laissez faire) attitude has appeal. Some questionable positions however,
- stated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty."
- voted against renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006
- supports abolition of all federal anti-drug legislation, legalization of medical marijuana and is for allowing the use industrial-grade hemp.

Wonder about his general position on private security contractors (largely no-bid contractors) such as Xe (formerly Blackwater).

Don't quite get his views regarding tobacco either. He equates cigarette smoking with driving unlawfully (speeding)? Am I understanding this correctly?
Top of pageBottom of page

Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub

Post Number: 1314
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 12:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Vetalalumni, Wikipedia does a pretty good job of defining his positions. He claimed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society". Ron Paul even voted against coining a commemorative metal for Reagan because he said the Constitution did not give him that authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P olitical_positions_of_Ron_Paul

On 3/7/09, Paul was on the DL Hughley show. Hughley says to him, "Ron, you're too human to be a Republican. You make too much sense to be a Republican." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =7uQBUQBIFkc

Ron Paul took the pro-marijuana side of a debate on the Larry King show on 3/13/09. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ZTnOTJT6N-k

Tucker Carlson wrote, "We were both finishing our brownies when he mentioned they'd been baked by a supporter. I stopped chewing. Where I work, this is a major taboo (Rule One: Never eat food sent by viewers), and my concern must have shown. Paul grinned. "Maybe they're spiked with marijuana," he said.

If so, it would have been his first experience with illegal drugs. Though Paul argues passionately for liberalizing marijuana laws and is beloved by potheads (Timothy Leary once held a fund-raiser for him), he has never smoked pot himself. He sounded shocked when I asked him. "I have never seen anyone smoke marijuana," he said. "I don't think I'd be open to using it." For some people, libertarianism is the philosophical justification for a zany personal life. Paul, by contrast, describes his hobbies as gardening (roses and organic tomatoes) and "riding my bicycle." He has never had a cigarette. He doesn't swear. He limits his drinking to an occasional glass of wine and goes to church regularly. He has been married to the same woman for 50 years. Three of their five children are physicians.

Ron Paul is deeply square, and every bit as deeply committed to your right not to be."
-from "Pimp My Ride" Do read this article. It covers his followers be they geeks, ranchers, or prostitutes. http://www.tnr.com/politics/st ory.html?id=83665295-1de6-4571 -af9c-0a90f6d1fde0

He is opposed to Xe for a variety of reasons but offered a bill proposing a letter of marquee to go after Bin Laden that could have involved non-military forces.

Trying to get back to this thread since I think that Ron Paul's age works against him, Mark Sanford is the closest to Ron Paul among prominant Republicans although I prefer independent Jesse Ventura.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 19429
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 3:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why doesn't Paul fully acknowledge his allegiances and declare himself Libertarian?

Jesse Ventura is also a Libertarian, outwardly and openly however.

Besides being weak on defense, Libertarians have a very strong platform.
Top of pageBottom of page

Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni

Post Number: 1422
Registered: 05-2007
Posted on Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 7:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ron Paul's opening statement at Bernanke's hearing with the House Financial Services Committee (2/25/09)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =aW2V50AS7K0

Ron Paul explains to Glenn Beck why he believes we should abolish the Fed (2/24/09)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =eR6JMuvcqU4&NR=1

Ron Paul: Bernanke Deliberately Destroying Dollar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =pGlmidTTIKg
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 19450
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:20 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

See....spot on all over the place....except defense.
Top of pageBottom of page

Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub

Post Number: 1315
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 11:37 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bat, You are wrong about defense. Ron Paul was lauded by Reagan as being strong on defense, has high ratings among veteran groups, received more campaign contributions from military personnel than any other candidate of any party, Voted to go after Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, offered a 'letter of marque' to otherwise pursue Bin Laden, and wants troops along the Mexican border to defend this country.
______________________________ _________

Forbes just published an article about Mark Sanford.

"Sanford's opposition to President Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and in particular his insistence on using up to a fourth of his state's stimulus funds to pay down debt or refusing it outright, has fast made him a folk hero to conservatives. To some, Sanford's opposition to the stimulus funds is an act of political grandstanding, a naked effort to sell out the poorest and most vulnerable South Carolinians in order to curry favor with a national Republican audience. To others, he has struck a mighty and principled blow against big government. Whatever else Sanford has done, he has given conservatives a rare opportunity to return to their roots and to shake off the contradictions and compromises that have built up over the past 30 years."

"Now, however, Mark Sanford has taken on many of Paul's themes. Unlike John McCain or Mitt Romney, Sanford goes far beyond criticizing earmarks. In the face of a severe recession, he has refused to accept hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid. Recognizing that the military establishment represents an enormous slice of federal spending, Sanford has also declared that he opposes pre-emptive wars, like the invasion of Iraq. In short, Sanford is the real deal. He is the candidate Rush Limbaugh and countless others who embrace the cause of shrinking government have been waiting for."

"Grand New Party -Why Mark Sanford Matters"
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/ 15/mark-sanford-economy-opinio ns-contributors-salam_print.ht ml
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4555
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 11:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And now, Why Mark Sanford is Increasingly Irrelevant:

quote:

When you’re starving and someone offers to buy you lunch, you don’t say, “I only want your money if I can put it into my 401(k).” But that’s essentially what Mr. Sanford wants to do with $700 million that the Congress voted to send to South Carolina to help us put people to work, or keep them from being laid off, in the hope of breaking the economic free fall.



http://www.thestate.com/opinio n/story/715811.html

If only we could all be born into wealthy plantation families. Life would just be so simple then, wouldn't it? I'm sure the rest of the country is in awe of the awesome educational and employment levels in South Carolina. But at least our taxes are low, thanks to the $1.35 we get from every dollar we send to DC! Thanks, Mr. Sanford!
Top of pageBottom of page

Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub

Post Number: 1316
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 12:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I thought that Congressional Democrats passed a bill allowing them to bypass Sanford and give money directly to the SC legislature.

Gov. Perry of Texas rejected some parts of Porkulus that mandated costly matching participation by his State. My understanding is that Sanford also wanted to weed through it to remove the parts with a negative cost basis ratio.

Washington DC Democrats are very concerned that the states accept the government teat they they are offering. The last thing they want is for states to show a little independence and do something on their own that might not reflect the needs of bureaucrats in DC.

Plantations? "His father Marshall was a successful heart surgeon in southwest Florida, but strained to teach his sons thrift and hard work. That meant laboring on the family’s summer property, a farm in Beaufort, South Carolina. “His big intent with the farm was teaching us how to work. We thought as we were bailing hay in August that our next meal depended on us getting that hay in. It did not. But we didn’t know any better as kids,” Sanford says.

This education didn’t end with summer. When the family returned to Florida’s scorching Septembers, Sanford recalls, “Everybody slept in Mom and Dad’s room so we’d only run one air-conditioning unit. My brothers on the floor, my sister on the window seat. In retrospect, how totally weird. The guy’s a heart surgeon. He could certainly afford to spring for another air-conditioning unit.” But the lesson took. As governor, Sanford has refused to use the air conditioning in the governor’s mansion in Columbia."

http://www.amconmag.com/articl e/2009/mar/09/00006/
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4556
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 1:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

I thought that Congressional Democrats passed a bill allowing them to bypass Sanford and give money directly to the SC legislature.

Gov. Perry of Texas rejected some parts of Porkulus that mandated costly matching participation by his State. My understanding is that Sanford also wanted to weed through it to remove the parts with a negative cost basis ratio.



Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) introduced that "bypass" provision, knowing that Mark Sanford would otherwise reject the money intended to help South Carolina get on its feet. The $700 million mentioned above is a portion of the $2.8 billion intended for South Carolina. Sanford wishes to use it to fund pensions for state employees in the future, rather than use it to improve the economy of the state in the present.

quote:

Washington DC Democrats are very concerned that the states accept the government teat they they are offering. The last thing they want is for states to show a little independence and do something on their own that might not reflect the needs of bureaucrats in DC.



South Carolina has been doing things "independently" under Sanford for 6 years--cutting taxes to the bone, cutting necessary government functions because--SURPRISE--the state doesn't have enough money to fund a proper government, maintaining one of the lowest-achieving educational systems in the US, ensuring continued poverty (South Carolina is wealthier than nine economic powerhouses, including Kentucky, South Dakota, Mississippi, and New Mexico) and earning the honor of the nation's 2nd-highest unemployment rate. Sounds pretty terrific, doesn't it? Makes you wonder why other governors aren't following Sanford's lead!

In an October 27, 2002 article from the Charlotte Observer:

quote:

It was just six months ago that Mark Sanford introduced himself to S.C. voters in a television commercial that opened with him saying, "Growing up on our family's farm in South Carolina taught me about hard work and responsibility."


The "family farm" is, in fact, historic Coosaw Plantation near Beaufort, appraised at $1.5 million shortly after Sanford's father's death in 1982.

A Florida native, Sanford's family spent summers and holidays at Coosaw before moving to South Carolina when he was 18. He received his bachelor's degree from Furman University and an MBA from the University of Virginia.



http://74.125.95.132/search?q= cache:q67l85TutOcJ:blogs.thest ate.com/bradwarthensblog/files /sanford_biz.doc+Coosaw+Planta tion&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Yup. All hard work and personal responsibility. Any determined South Carolinian could do the same, if he'd just limit himself to one air conditioner and act like his next meal depends on baling hay.

There's an adjective for people like Mark Sanford: "cheap".

(Message edited by DaninDC on March 16, 2009)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4557
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 1:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

From the same Charlotte Observer article as above:

quote:

Sanford's father, Marshall Sr., was chief cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore before entering private practice in Florida. He left 3,000 acres of S.C. land to his widow and children.



quote:

Sanford didn't have a reputation in Lowcountry real estate circles, according to people who have been in the business for many years.


"I'd never heard about him as someone involved in real estate," said Tommy Hartnett, a Charleston real estate broker and Republican former U.S. House member who this month hosted a fund-raiser for Sanford.


"In '94, he came here to tell me he was running for Congress; I had never met him," Hartnett said.


Political scientist Moore said, "He really was very early in his business career when he ran for Congress. So there's not really a substantial track record as a businessman."


Rather, Moore said, "He comes from a background of wealth; he inherited it, and he married it."


Jennifer and Mark Sanford married in 1989. Her grandfather was the founder of the Skil power tool company in Chicago. Her father, John Sullivan, left the company to become CEO of the Reading Corp. of Philadelphia, a major player in real estate development in the Northeast.



quote:

Jennifer Sanford graduated magna cum laude from Georgetown University and became an investment banker with Lazard Freres in New York, where she met Sanford at a party in the Hamptons. They have four sons.



quote:

Sanford's critics predict that if he does become governor, he will end up isolated and impotent. They point to his record in Congress, replete with often futile stands for a set of principles centering on less government and an end to wasteful spending. They say his penchant for going it alone shows he lacks the art of cajolery and compromise that South Carolina's relatively weak governor must master.



Yup. Just an average, regular, working stiff.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4558
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 1:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And here's what the "average" South Carolina farm looks like:



Top of pageBottom of page

Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub

Post Number: 1318
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 2:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sanford "stands for a set of principles centering on less government and an end to wasteful spending."

Less goverment and wasteful spending? No wonder the Democrats don't like this guy. Does the "average SC farm" in your photo belong to the Sanfords or is it just something you threw in to highlight the SC plantation theme rather to the Democrats' federal plantation theme?

Actually, it works better to criticize Democrats for coming from rich families (Kennedy, Gore) or marrying rich (Johnson, Kerry). Conversely, it works better to destroy Republicans by noting wasteful spending (Bush)and moral tiffs (Gingrich, Larry Craig).
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4561
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 2:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Less goverment and wasteful spending? No wonder the Democrats don't like this guy. Does the "average SC farm" in your photo belong to the Sanfords or is it just something you threw in to highlight the SC plantation theme rather to the Democrats' federal plantation theme?



That photo is the Coosaw Plantation house, owned by the Sanfords.

Mark Sanford is doing just fine destroying himself and his state. He doesn't need anyone's help.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336

Post Number: 8692
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 4:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

actually, it is silly to criticize dems for being rich -- there is nothing hypocritical about being wealthy and wanting to do something to level the playing field, whereas it is perfectly correct to criticize the right for their hypocrisy regarding "morality"
Top of pageBottom of page

20043_stotter
Member
Username: 20043_stotter

Post Number: 834
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 5:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

RB, Add to it their lack of compassion like Doctor? "You know who".
Top of pageBottom of page

Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub

Post Number: 1319
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 6:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan, That is uncomfortably plantation looking even for a Republican.

Rb, Whether or not it's silly, Democrats are more subject to one set of hypocrisies and Republicans to another.

stotter, I agree. Democrats and many Republicans lack compassion when they institute policies that cause inflation. It's tough on the poor and elderly. Creating unnecessary wars, and government debt interest aren't acts of compassion either.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 19467
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, March 16, 2009 - 10:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Compassion is far too kind of a description. This is down right malicious and predatory upon the poorest citizens for the sake of grabbing power in the form of socialism.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336

Post Number: 8701
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 9:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

sorry, ola, being wealthy and wanting policies that help the working class and help to expand the middle class is NOT hypocrisy
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4564
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 9:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Democrats and many Republicans lack compassion when they institute policies that cause inflation.



Well you just let us know when this rampant inflation starts to happen, okay?
Top of pageBottom of page

Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub

Post Number: 1322
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 10:39 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan, Okay. Since Woodrow Wilson began the Federal Reserve, the dollar has lost 95% of its spending power. Roosevelt officially devalued the dollar by 59% in one swoop while we were still on the gold standard. Clinton adjusted the inputs into the Consumer Price Index. Using pre-Clinton inputs, the cost of living has been going up at least 8%/year. This makes it ok for the government to give smaller CPI adjustments for social security recipients. That is not compassionate. That is crooked.

Ask around. Some people might tell you that they have noticed increases in the price of groceries, medicine, and tuition lately.

Actually, "inflation" is the measure of new money the government is creating. More dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services results in "higher prices" which is result of inflation rather than the actual inflation.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4565
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 11:09 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Let's think about this. If incomes rise over time, how do you propose to maintain the cost of living as a constant?

Specific examples of the "corrupt" policies by "Democrats and many Republicans" that have directly caused inflation might help me understand your point better. It seems, though, that your intent is to blame Democrats for a perceived problem.
Top of pageBottom of page

Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni

Post Number: 1427
Registered: 05-2007
Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 12:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Coulter/Palin in 2012!

When you mute the TV while watching Ann Coulter, she is not bad to look at :-). She has a pretty smile and a nice slender figure. And she certainly flicks her gorgeous hair around often (she knows many men like that).

And Palin can cause men to sit up straight in their seats when she winks during television appearances.

(Message edited by vetalalumni on March 17, 2009)
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 19799
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 8:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Romney/Palin? Romney/Jindahl.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336

Post Number: 8788
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 - 10:13 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

a clown and one of two proven losers bats?

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.