Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Lucifer

Pages: 1 ... 84 85 [86] 87
1276
Spin Zone / Re: We're Screwed..............
« on: February 01, 2016, 01:48:29 PM »
no matter who ends up in the White House.   The only difference I see, potentially, is the amount of time to get to the end.  If we put another "D" in the White House we'll get there much quicker.  If we put an "R" in the White house we still get there, but maybe a little slower although actions of late do not bare that out.

Someone convince me this is not true and that there actually is a way to pay down $20T in debt and not have it increase from this point on.
$20T is nothing, the unfunded liabilities are an order of magnitude worse and effectively un-repayable.

With the current choices and the systems in place to limit those choices we are screwed, the only question is how long.

If either or both parties can be reclaimed by the people AND someone can actually act as adult supervision it could get better but I am not expecting it.

'Gimp

1277
Spin Zone / Re: Question for the Trumpkins?
« on: February 01, 2016, 10:15:05 AM »

I've never asked for a demonstration of Dear Leader Trump as a "true conservative".  I'm simply asking that the person seeking the nomination of the more conservative mainstream party demonstrate a single example of a conservative position when not running for office.  That's an incredibly low bar, yet Dear Leader Trump and his Trumpkins seem wholly incapable of crossing it.
Again, not asking for that.  Just one, only one, example of Dear Leader Trump advocating for a conservative position.
Here's the thing.  The point of asking for a single position by Trump that is conservative is to point out that he is of the Left.  He is a Democrat in the Republican Primary.  The goal is to go into the general with two Democrats (maybe 3 if Bloomberg runs as an "Independent")
Pure bovine scatology.

You set up a strawman argument.  As has been pointed out to you, by your own logic Reagan would be ineligible for your support since he was a Democrat before he was a Republican - he advocated Democrat ideals until he changed his position and campaigned as a Republican.  If Ronaldus Magnus can't make it no way that Trump or Cruz or anyone else can.

Newsflash - we have been picking between Democrat and Democrat "Light" since Bush '41 - how well has that been working out for us?

The reason Trump is attractive to many, as has also been pointed out to you endlessly, is the perception that he takes no shit and can not be 'bought'.

If you review Trump's body of work he is clearly a pro-business candidate, most likely a Fiscal Conservative, Socially Liberal North East Republican.  His previous party affiliation means no more than did Reagan's or anybody else's.

Did he change his position on abortion?  Yes.  Did Cruz change on imigration and ethanol subsidies Syria, etc.?  Yes.  Did Rubio change on immigration and 2A etc.?  Yes.

There are no ideological pure Conservatives in this fight, none.  And if we don't win it means nothing.

Would Cruz be more Conservative than Trump on matters of substance?  Maybe, can't say for sure since both have changed positions - would either be way more Conservative than the alternative - yes.

'Gimp

1278
Spin Zone / Re: Question for the Trumpkins?
« on: February 01, 2016, 09:55:24 AM »
Jeff I have been holding off for a while but you still have not acknowledged that this is a strawman argument. 

As far as I can recall, nobody here, before your question, was calling Trump a true conservative - I know I haven't.

As for people saying one thing when campaigning and doing another if/when elected show me one person who has not 'matured' a position - not Cruz, not Rubio, not any of them.

None of them are ideologically pure or truly principled from a Conservatism standpoint, not one.

I get it, you don't like Trump, the petty name calling (Trumpkins), the endless links to anti-Trump stuff - OK.

I just wish that those of us on the Right would spend more time formulating a strategy of exposing and defeating the failures of the Left rather than forming a circular firing squad to torpedo the top two candidates on our own freaking side. 

Imagine if we spent even half the energy currently being invested in bashing Trump or Cruz on educating the middle and left-of-center voters on who is actually responsible for their suffering and powerfully and positively espousing conservative ideals (no matter how recently acquired).

I think people still totally fail to understand the Trump approach and continue to try and use conventional campaign thinking an conventional campaign tactics on a clearly asymmetric campaign - like sending an Aircraft Carrier after 6 Somali pirates in a dinghy with a 40hp Evinrude.

And as a reminder, I am not a Trump supporter, not supporting his campaign with dollars or time - I am only voting 'FOR' this time, voting against is a waste and keeps the elites in power.  If they can't produce a candidate and campaign I want to vote for I am not voting.  I could vote for Trump if he is the candidate, but that is a ways off yet.

'Gimp

1279
Spin Zone / Re: No Trump. No. Go Away, Trump. Stand Down.
« on: February 01, 2016, 09:41:28 AM »
He is unelectable. 

"Barack Obama reportedly won the 2012 election due to his campaign’s mastery of Big Data. Hillary Clinton and the DNC have access to that data. It cost a fortune to build and they will use it effectively.

The Democrats will make a series of short videos and post them to Facebook, Google, Twitter, You Tube and Instagram. The videos will be microtargeted to the right demographic. Big Data makes it easy to target voters. My view is that the mother lode is on immigration and that the MSM will attack Trump’s (or his subcontractors) use of illegal alien labor in the hotel, golf course, restaurant and construction industries. Social media will amplify this MSM attack. The MSM ignore social media and the use of Big Data because Facebook and Google are eating their lunch on ad dollars. That’s why you don’t read much about how the campaigns use it to win elections.

Trump’s coarse and at times outlandish language and behavior can only drive his unfavorable numbers even higher. Jean Kaufman, for example, has written about Trump and eminent domain here. Kelo is practically a litmus test for conservatives and Trump is on the other side.

Think about what the Dems did to that fine man who is Mitt Romney. When the Dems got finished with Mitt, many thought he was a heartless murderer. A false accusation, to be sure, but it worked. In my opinion, the anti-Trump social media videos will result in a landslide loss for the GOP.

The GOP must win this election. Trump is not electable. Vote for a candidate in the primaries who can win in November. You have a number of good candidates to select."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/live-from-council-bluffs-its-donald-trump-2.php
Big difference is Mitt was too soft to fight back, I for one would pay to watch a social media fight between the DNC and Trump Org, it would be like a UFC title match and the result would be very different than what we have been subjected to over the last 30 years.  The power of celebrity that Trump wields is unlike anything the Republicans have fielded since Reagan in terms of being able to go outside the kingmakers and gate keepers and straight to the people.

Just say no to DNC tropes.

'Gimp

1280
Spin Zone / Re: DuckingDonald.com
« on: January 27, 2016, 08:51:59 AM »
Meygen Kelly is a media whore, period.  She reminds me of the line in the song "dirty laundry".

Exactly.  It is ALL ABOUT HER and her RATINGS.  Plus her boobs are too small.   

1281
Spin Zone / Re: POA Hangar Talk?
« on: January 25, 2016, 09:50:21 AM »
Agreed. Why give BrYan more reason to act like a pompous ass?

that's like saying not to spit into the ocean...


1282
Spin Zone / Re: Not Trump
« on: January 25, 2016, 07:46:01 AM »
I like Cruz best, and will probably vote for Cruz.  That said, if Trump gets  the nod, I will not only vote for him, but will probably do some work for him too.   Trump may not be a hard right conservative, but I think he is more conservative than Ryan, Mcconnell, Mccain and most of the other republicans.   I think Trump will have the ability to bitch slap the wussies in there now and get them to stand up against the progressive disaster that has been thrust upon us for the last 9 years.  So yes, I'll vote for Trump gladly if he is the nominee.

1283
Spin Zone / Re: Socialism Explained
« on: January 25, 2016, 06:18:51 AM »
That's not socialism, that's being smart.  Socialism is the centralization of an economy and its production.  Armies, police and fire by necessity fall under the control of government, that isn't socialism and we won't let you redefine the term to make it seem innocuous.   Health care, food production, energy production, manufacturing and pretty much everything else are best left to markets, where the weak producers fall by the wayside and the successful are rewarded. There are example after example of socialist failures throughout history and even in modern times.

Also, things like National Defense and interstate commerce were signed off on by the states in the Constitution.  We accepted those things for the greater good, and because it makes sense.  That other socialist crap doesn't and was NOT AGREED TO by the states.  Remember, we are a collection of states first, not the Oligarchy we've become.

Steingar doesn't understand the Constitution, nor the basic concepts of our country.  He's been brainwashed by his cultural bias, and the faculty lounge. 

1284
Spin Zone / Re: Will This End the Clinton Candidacy?
« on: January 25, 2016, 05:53:40 AM »

The Constitution is not a magic oracle that answers all questions precisely.  It is a document of principles whose application and interpretation morphs with time.  I know, that is waving more red meat, but it is a reality.  The Constitution has been morphing for about 227 years.  It could not have been otherwise.  As such, everyone brings their viewpoints to the table and argues that the Constitution supports their view.  Cruz of course has an excellent understanding of how previous courts have ruled on these issues.  It is a predicate to arguing your position.  I have yet to find someone who changed their personal political philosophy based on reading some SCOTUS decision or other.

I have no position to fail at other than my opinion of Ted Cruz and that has not failed as it has not changed.  Some times an opinion is just an opinion.  If you can get me to change it, then good on you, but you haven't got close to the mark yet. 

No worries Kristin.  I wouldn't dream of changing your mind on anything.  Is your statement about "waiving red meat" a concession that you know your position on constitutional matters is well beyond the founding principles and original intent of the founders?  The Constitution may not be a magic oracle, but it has severed us well for over 225 years and is very explicit in at least two areas often discussed here.  "....shall not be infringed." and "Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....".  I see absolutely no ambiguity, yet certain groups of ideologues have done a remarkable job of convincing the ill-informed or those that are too lazy to read the documents that the language is somehow different than written.

The fact that some are scared of religion or guns, doesn't give them the right to violate that which was given to us; which is a remarkable system of government.  Confirming politicians to the Supreme Court (such as Roberts with Obamacare), or allowing the Executive branch to rule by fiat is an affront to the balance of powers the founders gave us.  They gave us a means to make changes in the Constitution, yet some seem to accept these lawless activities as long as they appease their ideology.  That is a slippery slope that will result in a complete failure of our government.  It's sad (and borders on treason) that some are willing to make that trade.

1285
Spin Zone / Re: Will This End the Clinton Candidacy?
« on: January 24, 2016, 10:02:56 AM »
Another trait of the liberals is to degrade anyone who is conservative, mock them as being stupid, uneducated and devoid of anything intelligent.

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5 and 13:

5.  “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

13.  “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Seriously, these are tactics I see conservatives using all the time in debate and on forums like these. I've never heard of Alinsky, or his rules.
[/quote]

another tactic is projection.


1286
Spin Zone / Re: Will This End the Clinton Candidacy?
« on: January 24, 2016, 08:42:28 AM »



LMAO, it was OK when it was "Constitutional scholar" BH O'Bama.

Another trait of the liberals is to degrade anyone who is conservative, mock them as being stupid, uneducated and devoid of anything intelligent.

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5 and 13:

5.  “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

13.  “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

1287
Spin Zone / Re: Will This End the Clinton Candidacy?
« on: January 24, 2016, 08:26:16 AM »





[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?

Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."

You might start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947).  Both quote Jefferson's letter to the Baptists promising a wall of separate between church and state.  Then we have a whole raft to decisions from there making clear that any governmental promotion of a religion is unconstitutional.

If you have had the pleasure of taking Con Law you must have slept through it.

Oooh. Landmark cases. Impressive. Now tell me one thing that Cruz has proposed that violates Jefferson's metaphor of the "wall of separation." 

And your lame claim of what he said in Iowa isn't one of them.

Why is it so tough to just admit that you want the First Amendment to mean a Freedom FROM Religion?

It does mean freedom from state supported religion.

Duh. Any 8th grader should know that.  But that's not what concerns you in Cruz's case, is it?

My concern with Cruz is either that he is pandering or that he is a Christian bigot who thinks science is a waste of time because all answers to our existence is in Genesis.

So your concerns changed from post #47 when you said Cruz is not a Constitutionalist because he doesn't understand the separation of church and state?  Because that was kind of the point of this whole discussion, wasn't it? 

Can you fill me in on what Cruz has said that makes him a "Christian bigot?"  I don't think you've articulated that yet.

While you're at it, can you cite any statement of Cruz where he said or implied that "science is a waste of time"?  Or can we conclude that you're so bigoted against all Christians that you are simply projecting your hatred toward a candidate that you despise, who happens to be Christian?

I consider a statement saying that if you don't start the day praying that you are not fit to be President a pretty good example of bigotry.

Cruz has spend lots of time getting cozy with the creationist crowd.  I recall him being asked if he accepted any aspects of evolution and he ducked the question.  It is a fair one considering his father is an outspoken support of creationist theory ala Genesis.

Got it. So just to clarify, your hatred of Cruz has nothing to do with your belief that he is not a Constitutionalist and that he doesn't understand the First Amendment, as you stated, and everything to do with your own anti- Christian bigotry.

Thanks for the explanation.

1288
Spin Zone / Re: Will This End the Clinton Candidacy?
« on: January 24, 2016, 06:05:50 AM »

The statement itself does not as the Constitutional limitations do not apply to person actions.  It does give an insight into his mind however.  A very scary look at that.

I've been told for 8 years that I'm a racist because I disagree with Obama on nearly everything.  Does that mean you are a bigoted racist because of your hatred of a religious, Hispanic Senator? 

Hmmmmm...

Cruz is one of the most accomplished legal minds and constitutional scholars of our time and you find him scary?.....

Very disappointing Kristin.

A scholar he is not.  A scholar studies.  Cruz argues that the Constitution should mean what he wants it to mean.  I good trait in an appellate litigator, but that does not make him a scholar.

Interesting argument Kristin..... I suppose it's possible Mr Cruz gained his deep and thorough understanding of our founding documents and subsequent case law through osmosis, but I have to tell you, I think it highly unlikely.   Do you suppose he just "winged it" when aurguing before the Supreme Court?

Seeing you bob and weave, while parsing words in your attempt to wiggle out of a failed position is a thing of beauty.  I truly enjoy your posts, and am glad you've chosen to participate in this little corner of paradise.  Be well on this glorious day of worship.   ;D

1289
Spin Zone / Re: Will This End the Clinton Candidacy?
« on: January 22, 2016, 10:07:23 AM »
Whenever anyone trouts out 'separation of church and state' when speaking about a candidate who is not a muslim that discussion is over for me - it represents such a monumental lack of critical thinking or comprehension of the founding as to be the debate equivalent of jumping the shark - there is simply no point in continuing with someone without a foundation in logic and history.

I literally lose all respect for anyone who does that on whatever subject they do it with.

'Gimp

Its been a canard for years by the left/Dems/Government/media/education cabal.  They have used that lie to remove religious symbols all over the U.S.  Its OK if the people that respected those symbols are offended.

1290
Spin Zone / Re: Will This End the Clinton Candidacy?
« on: January 22, 2016, 06:55:16 AM »
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.


Which bolsters his case considerably, seeing as the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Pages: 1 ... 84 85 [86] 87