Cpac 2014

[midcan5]

"My fellow Americans we need to get back to the principles of our founders, we need to cut spending, reduce taxes, get government out of our lives, bring back liberty, and tell our people the truth. Government is the problem as Ronald Reagan said so eloquently. Since media will not get our story out, we must, we must stop the entitlement mentality that makes people dependent on government. The trillion dollar deficit is the problem we need to address immediately, we need to reduce our budget, return our land to the people, and return to the principles of our founders." Senator/Representative/Governor/Realestate Salesperson Whatstheirname


A question comes from the audience:


But you work for government, and the majority of America's debt was caused by conservative republican policy, and Reagan raised taxes numerous times as he grew government, and the last conservative republican created an enormous entitlement program and the great depression and great recession both followed conservative republican rule?

Footnote: Watching this is like watching groupthink in action, the same empty talk follows the same empty talk. Christie now blames the Media for created traffic jams. Cruz condemns his workplace and the job he aspires to. Representative Ryan, a Social Security recipient, rails against governmental supports. One wonders how this passes muster with anyone over twelve? You wait for the puppet master to appear and take a bow. Words come to stand for the reality that was and is the reality they helped create and continue to create through unfunded wars, unfair tax policy, and a do nothing for all America mentality. If I didn't see it with my own eyes and hear it with my own ears, I'd think it satire done by a master satirist who understands deeply the pure comedy of the words when juxtaposed with their actions and accomplishments.


Footnote two: In case you miss any of it on cspan, use the above outline quote above to catch up on their latest ideas.

[Codename Section]

So, if someone asks a question from the audience that agrees with your line of thinking then it's correct. You could easily say the same of Obama's town halls, etc.

[Common]

Honestly, I still agree with many conservative principles but their undieing quest to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else, totally turned me off them. The teaparty was responsible for that.
I am a registered independent and from local to national elections I will vote for who I can best determine is the best for the job. Party Affiliation means nothing to me. I will vote for Gop a Dem a libertarian a Green or independent if I think they are the best of the lot.

[nic34]

What an embarrassing clown show. Donald Trump? Gary Bauer?

.... to be wrapped up by the clown leader Palin.....

[Codename Section]

That's much better than Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosie or Feinstein. :rollseyes:


Let's face it 99.9% of all Washington sucks. This whole ignore how sucky my team is to focus on the other team is exactly what keeps us with 99.9% crap.

[Cigar]

This country isn't going Back to anything ... it's going Forward, Methodically, Progressively and by any means necessary.

The Good Old Days are Gone ... Forever and will Never Ever Come-Back.

:wink:

[Chris]

Comment: Those opening libertarian lines tend to be where the GOP starts but by nomination won't recognize.

Question: Why are all the liberals watching CPAC? What a waste of time.

[nic34]

That's much better than Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosie or Feinstein. :rollseyes:



No they're not "better". Sheeesh code....

[midcan5]

OMG tears welled up over the little boy's story told by Paul Ryan on how he didn't want a free lunch he wanted a bagged lunch. That little boy was for 'freedom' and you know what 'freedom' means to right wing Americans don't you, even those like Ryan who suckle at the teat of government. Just a little Mahatma Gandhi, hopefully someone tells him not eating may fry his brain and he too could one day think like Paul Ryan. We can only hope he eats.


"In the bowels of the National Harbor convention center in suburban Maryland on Thursday, a nonprofit called Empact America schooled attendees about the threat of a terrorist attack by way of an electromagnetic pulse. Former Reagan Defense Department official Frank Gaffney articulated his view that anti-tax activist and American Conservative Union board member Grover Norquist is an undercover agent for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ginni Thomas, a Daily Caller contributor and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, alleged that President Barack Obama may be guilty of providing material support for terrorism. At least one panelist suggested that Speaker of the House John Boehner was a part of the Benghazi cover-up. (Who can say?)" http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/when-did-cpac-get-so-normal

In other news at CPAC, Fredrick Hayek and Milton Friedman are ahead in the libertarian poll for next president.

[zelmo1234]

This country isn't going Back to anything ... it's going Forward, Methodically, Progressively and by any means necessary.

The Good Old Days are Gone ... Forever and will Never Ever Come-Back.

:wink:

I actually agree with you Cigar, If the progressives and Liberals stay in charge the good old days of the American Dream are gone forever, and poverty and despair will be all that the public has to look forward too!

[Ravi]

OMG tears welled up over the little boy's story told by Paul Ryan on how he didn't want a free lunch he wanted a bagged lunch. That little boy was for 'freedom' and you know what 'freedom' means to right wing Americans don't you, even those like Ryan who suckle at the teat of government. Just a little Mahatma Gandhi, hopefully someone tells him not eating may fry his brain and he too could one day think like Paul Ryan. We can only hope he eats.


"In the bowels of the National Harbor convention center in suburban Maryland on Thursday, a nonprofit called Empact America schooled attendees about the threat of a terrorist attack by way of an electromagnetic pulse. Former Reagan Defense Department official Frank Gaffney articulated his view that anti-tax activist and American Conservative Union board member Grover Norquist is an undercover agent for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ginni Thomas, a Daily Caller contributor and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, alleged that President Barack Obama may be guilty of providing material support for terrorism. At least one panelist suggested that Speaker of the House John Boehner was a part of the Benghazi cover-up. (Who can say?)" http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/when-did-cpac-get-so-normal

In other news at CPAC, Fredrick Hayek and Milton Friedman are ahead in the libertarian poll for next president.
Turns out Ryan lied about the little boy. Funny, he made the cons tear up. Cons are easily led. This promises to be another incredibly amusing presidential campaign. I can't see how they can top the last one, though.

[Ransom]

There is a reason the messenger rather than the message are attacked. We march into 2014 elections realizing the Dims are vulnerable, they have 'rifts' everywhere you look, Obama cannot campaign for many in his Party in tight races, the GOP does have a chance in 9 months to fire Harry Reid and hold on to the House. That would be huge. It lame ducks Obama immediately, it changes the landscape. Button your chinstraps.

[Alyosha]

The real star of CPAC was Rand Paul doing what progressives are too cowardly and complacent to do, talk about our 4th Amendment rights.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5DG2tKqPlM


It's probably because to talk about them, progressives would have to admit that their president violates them and promotes people violating them.

[Codename Section]

The real star of CPAC was Rand Paul doing what progressives are too cowardly and complacent to do, talk about our 4th Amendment rights.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5DG2tKqPlM


It's probably because to talk about them, progressives would have to admit that their president violates them and promotes people violating them.


Hello, my beautious one. How is your lovely self this morning?

[Alyosha]

Turns out Ryan lied about the little boy. Funny, he made the cons tear up. Cons are easily led. This promises to be another incredibly amusing presidential campaign. I can't see how they can top the last one, though.

I'm glad you're against lying, Ravi

http://rare.us/story/julian-assange-president-obamas-speech-embarrassing-heard-a-lot-of-lies/

Now, you can say the same of Obama's lies, especially since they hurt far more people being the chief executive and all. I'll expect your consistency in saying how Progs and Dems are easily led since you're all about truth telling.

[Alyosha]

Hello, my beautious one. How is your lovely self this morning?

Hello, handsome. :D

[midcan5]

Rand Paul is a joke. 'Liberty lovers' addressed by a man who wants to control a woman's reproductive rights, who represents a party that wants to manage access to voting, a key right of liberty. "Imagine a time...." 'Liberty' 'liberty' 'liberty' all you need is 'liberty.' Principle and conviction are so easy to say, but consider he is a member of the party that brought us 'Homeland Security' and its numerous repercussions. He blames Obama for the acts of his own party. Does he forget the republican fight against a fair trial for terrorists. His words are empty and only the naive can take these generalities serious. He once again distorts history with his Madison reference. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." He turns this quote from Madison around. He is clever with his inclusion of race though, odd from a member of the party that wants to control minority voting through legislation. An empty soothsayer of words, an empty suit who benefits greatly from the very place he criticizes. Power is so interesting a thing.


Hallelujah, change is acoming....... LOL


'CPAC's boy wonder swings left'

"I think it was naive,” Krohn now says of the speech. “It’s a 13-year-old kid saying stuff that he had heard for a long time.… I live in Georgia. We’re inundated with conservative talk in Georgia.… The speech was something that a 13-year-old does. You haven’t formed all your opinions. You’re really defeating yourself if you think you have all of your ideas in your head when you were 12 or 13. It’s impossible. You haven’t done enough." Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78068.html

[Chris]

OMG tears welled up over the little boy's story told by Paul Ryan on how he didn't want a free lunch he wanted a bagged lunch. That little boy was for 'freedom' and you know what 'freedom' means to right wing Americans don't you, even those like Ryan who suckle at the teat of government. Just a little Mahatma Gandhi, hopefully someone tells him not eating may fry his brain and he too could one day think like Paul Ryan. We can only hope he eats.


"In the bowels of the National Harbor convention center in suburban Maryland on Thursday, a nonprofit called Empact America schooled attendees about the threat of a terrorist attack by way of an electromagnetic pulse. Former Reagan Defense Department official Frank Gaffney articulated his view that anti-tax activist and American Conservative Union board member Grover Norquist is an undercover agent for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ginni Thomas, a Daily Caller contributor and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, alleged that President Barack Obama may be guilty of providing material support for terrorism. At least one panelist suggested that Speaker of the House John Boehner was a part of the Benghazi cover-up. (Who can say?)" http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/when-did-cpac-get-so-normal

In other news at CPAC, Fredrick Hayek and Milton Friedman are ahead in the libertarian poll for next president.



Paul Ryan is a big government con who wants to increase taxes, increase spending, increase the reach of government into our lives. I'm surprised that you a liberal progressive don't appreciate him more.

[Chris]

The real star of CPAC was Rand Paul doing what progressives are too cowardly and complacent to do, talk about our 4th Amendment rights.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5DG2tKqPlM


It's probably because to talk about them, progressives would have to admit that their president violates them and promotes people violating them.


Commentary on Rand Paul's appearance at CPAC: Rand Paul’s very libertarian speech at CPAC (http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/07/video-rand-pauls-very-libertarian-speech-at-cpac/)


It was the most hotly anticipated speech of the day — and if you don’t believe me, here’s Charlie Spiering’s video of the standing O that Paul got when he walked out. He had three options here. One: Play it safe by finding common ground. He could have given a speech attacking government spending and all sides of the party would have found it peachy keen. Two: Show the hawks that he’s not his old man. The Crimea standoff is an easy way for him to prove that he’s not a staunch isolationist like Ron Paul is. Problem is, the libertarians who turned out today want him to resist the hawks, and the hawks won’t believe that he sincerely disagrees with his father no matter what he says. Why use an easy lay-up of a speech in front of a very friendly crowd to disappoint people?

So he chose option three: Be the civil libertarian that he is, loud and proud, and unload on the surveillance state. One of the reasons the crowd was so primed is, of course, because Paul fans tend to show in major numbers at CPAC for their guys. It’s their way of flexing a little muscle at a high-publicity event. Ron Paul won the straw poll in 2010 and 2011; Rand himself won it last year and would like to do so again tomorrow. The only thing that could prevent that, realistically, is disappointing his base today. So he didn’t. On the contrary, he chose a particular target of libertarianism that has great currency among grassroots conservatives too, at least for now. Remember this poll? The tea-party numbers are remarkable:

http://i.snag.gy/9BwmB.jpg

...

[Peter1469]

Sort of like Harry Reid?


Turns out Ryan lied about the little boy. Funny, he made the cons tear up. Cons are easily led. This promises to be another incredibly amusing presidential campaign. I can't see how they can top the last one, though.

[Alyosha]

Rand Paul is a joke. 'Liberty lovers' addressed by a man who wants to control a woman's reproductive rights, who represents a party that wants to manage access to voting, a key right of liberty. "Imagine a time...." 'Liberty' 'liberty' 'liberty' all you need is 'liberty.' Principle and conviction are so easy to say, but consider he is a member of the party that brought us 'Homeland Security' and its numerous repercussions. He blames Obama for the acts of his own party. Does he forget the republican fight against a fair trial for terrorists. His words are empty and only the naive can take these generalities serious. He once again distorts history with his Madison reference. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." He turns this quote from Madison around. He is clever with his inclusion of race though, odd from a member of the party that wants to control minority voting through legislation. An empty soothsayer of words, an empty suit who benefits greatly from the very place he criticizes. Power is so interesting a thing.


Hallelujah, change is acoming....... LOL


'CPAC's boy wonder swings left'

"I think it was naive,” Krohn now says of the speech. “It’s a 13-year-old kid saying stuff that he had heard for a long time.… I live in Georgia. We’re inundated with conservative talk in Georgia.… The speech was something that a 13-year-old does. You haven’t formed all your opinions. You’re really defeating yourself if you think you have all of your ideas in your head when you were 12 or 13. It’s impossible. You haven’t done enough." Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78068.html

midcan5

opinions are like assholes, every body's got one. When someone like you conveniently free passes Obama's lack of backbone and his assassinations lists your opinion turns into toilet paper.

You don't like Rand because you perceive he's a religionist.

He has tried to insert 4th and 5th amendment protections each and every time but you give him no credit. The only liberties you like are the ones that progressives rubber stamp.

Here's your one kid and I'll raise you a bunch of youth. The pendulum went your way, and now people want something else.

Youth Favorite Rand Chastises GOP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/cpac-2013-rand-paul-gop-old-has-grown-stale-and-mo/?page=all)

It would do well if you would listen to what people want and not tell them what they want. We want liberty. Rand won't get me all of it, not at all. He'll get me part way there.

[Peter1469]

It is funny that most of those on the right complain about both parties, but the majority of those on the left think their side is pure as the wind driven snow.... Yes, it is funny. :smiley:

[Ransom]

It is funny that most of those on the right complain about both parties, but the majority of those on the left think their side is pure as the wind driven snow.... Yes, it is funny. :smiley:

I actually rarely see Leftists in here driving snow at all towards theirs pure or otherwise. They seem to focus on the right, very little attention paid to this disaster of a heath care roll out or progressive policies. I see GOP bashing and it's normally regurgitated nonsense from others.

[Libhater]

It is amazing that when rinos' go aff the track (which is constant) the Conservative base jumps all over them.
When a Republican says something offensive over the airwaves (in the media) they are often if not always
either shown the door to another site or are fired on the spot.

I've never seen a prominent democrap ever criticize another democrap for fucking up in media speech, or have
I ever seen a prominent democrap mouthpiece like (Fat Head Ed Shultz) get canned for calling Laura Ingrham
a talk slut on his MSNBC show. Libs are one sided to the max, and as such their whole leftist agenda is going
to go down in flames starting with the mid term elections.

[donttread]

"My fellow Americans we need to get back to the principles of our founders, we need to cut spending, reduce taxes, get government out of our lives, bring back liberty, and tell our people the truth. Government is the problem as Ronald Reagan said so eloquently. Since media will not get our story out, we must, we must stop the entitlement mentality that makes people dependent on government. The trillion dollar deficit is the problem we need to address immediately, we need to reduce our budget, return our land to the people, and return to the principles of our founders." Senator/Representative/Governor/Realestate Salesperson Whatstheirname


A question comes from the audience:


But you work for government, and the majority of America's debt was caused by conservative republican policy, and Reagan raised taxes numerous times as he grew government, and the last conservative republican created an enormous entitlement program and the great depression and great recession both followed conservative republican rule?

Footnote: Watching this is like watching groupthink in action, the same empty talk follows the same empty talk. Christie now blames the Media for created traffic jams. Cruz condemns his workplace and the job he aspires to. Representative Ryan, a Social Security recipient, rails against governmental supports. One wonders how this passes muster with anyone over twelve? You wait for the puppet master to appear and take a bow. Words come to stand for the reality that was and is the reality they helped create and continue to create through unfunded wars, unfair tax policy, and a do nothing for all America mentality. If I didn't see it with my own eyes and hear it with my own ears, I'd think it satire done by a master satirist who understands deeply the pure comedy of the words when juxtaposed with their actions and accomplishments.


Footnote two: In case you miss any of it on cspan, use the above outline quote above to catch up on their latest ideas.

Blame the other guy has gotten us exactly where we are. The last 15 years is a record setting fiscal nightmare due to pretty much equally shared power between the "unholy two" They both must go, this isn't rocket surgery once you lose the denial it's glaringly obvious

[nic34]

midcan5

opinions are like assholes, every body's got one. When someone like you conveniently free passes Obama's lack of backbone and his assassinations lists your opinion turns into toilet paper.

You don't like Rand because you perceive he's a religionist.

He has tried to insert 4th and 5th amendment protections each and every time but you give him no credit. The only liberties you like are the ones that progressives rubber stamp.

Here's your one kid and I'll raise you a bunch of youth. The pendulum went your way, and now people want something else.

Youth Favorite Rand Chastises GOP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/cpac-2013-rand-paul-gop-old-has-grown-stale-and-mo/?page=all)

It would do well if you would listen to what people want and not tell them what they want. We want liberty. Rand won't get me all of it, not at all. He'll get me part way there.

Isn't that the same as Obama supporter's claim that he's not all they expected but the change he brought is at least a beginning?

We all expect that presidents are capable of sweeping changes when today unlike the days of FDR, they can only make course changes.
No, Rand would have more trouble with congress than Obama has had.

I'll support Bernie Sanders, but being realistic, I don't expect massive changes.

[Codename Section]

Isn't that the same as Obama supporter's claim that he's not all they expected but the change he brought is at least a beginning?


Yes. Except that Obama's done crap and Rand Paul's been working hard for the last couple of years.

[Kabuki Joe]

...word is Rand Paul, the head libraltarian, it getting the nod...another year of voting 3rd party...

[Codename Section]

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1186905_536056176509585_1382424428_n.png

[Ransom]

Yes. Except that Obama's done crap and Rand Paul's been working hard for the last couple of years.
He's lowered his handicap, that's at least something.

[Chris]

...word is Rand Paul, the head libraltarian, it getting the nod...another year of voting 3rd party...

Nah, it's early in the election cycle when Republicans always give a nod to libertarians. By nomination they will turn their backs again. You can vote Rep again.

[midcan5]

opinions are like assholes, every body's got one. When someone like you conveniently free passes Obama's lack of backbone and his assassinations lists your opinion turns into toilet paper.

[..]

It would do well if you would listen to what people want and not tell them what they want. We want liberty. Rand won't get me all of it, not at all. He'll get me part way there.

LOL You do realize the drill sergeants who often used the opinions quote did not represent liberty but just the opposite. lol You have liberty, now tell us what you and the peanut gallery of libertarian believers do with it aside from whine. Whining he does well anything else? Paul hasn't a chance nationally as libertarianism is nothing more than modern day communism in another jacket.

"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/)

[Ransom]

...word is Rand Paul, the head libraltarian, it getting the nod...another year of voting 3rd party...

3rd rate often votes for 3rd Party. You are responsible for Barack Obama as much as the constituents who twice voted this train wreck.

I'm a tad disappointed, Joe. I gotta be honest.

[Ransom]

Nah, it's early in the election cycle when Republicans always give a nod to libertarians. By nomination they will turn their backs again. You can vote Rep again.

Every candidate gets a nod, Chris. You can find Chris Christies to Ralph Reeds. The Republican Party does a fairly good job at offering a variety...a diverse platform is discussed. From pro-choice to gun control, from religious right to Tea Party........grass roots endeavors like the Tea Party don't occur in the Dim Parties.....you genius level political experts need to understand, we don't win Presidential elections because we cannot caucus like the Dims can. We do a much better job in local races, we have won back to back House races, we have kept Nancy Pelosi on the sidelines, you should at least appreciate that. You people need to stop your f'n whining and get involved. Establish support for a candidate, give money, encourage others to vote........and then remain dedicated. you aren't going to get your way all the time, others may not see eye to eye, you can snivel on about it and act like a child.......just get to the polls. And vote Republican.

My...but we've some rocket scientists in our party.

[Kabuki Joe]

3rd rate often votes for 3rd Party. You are responsible for Barack Obama as much as the constituents who twice voted this train wreck.

I'm a tad disappointed, Joe. I gotta be honest.


...do you make concessions on your morals?...I won't...he's just a liberal of another kind...

[Ransom]

...do you make concessions on your morals?...I won't...he's just a liberal of another kind...

But, he's not an Obama liberal Joe. He loves his country, isn't trying to further regulate our economy, wouldn't put a Holder or Rice in Office.

[Cigar]

...do you make concessions on your morals?...I won't...he's just a liberal of another kind...

Thanks God, can you imagine a World with Conservatives in charge :laugh:

[Chris]

LOL You do realize the drill sergeants who often used the opinions quote did not represent liberty but just the opposite. lol You have liberty, now tell us what you and the peanut gallery of libertarian believers do with it aside from whine. Whining he does well anything else? Paul hasn't a chance nationally as libertarianism is nothing more than modern day communism in another jacket.

"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/)



Why we exercise out liberty through self-responsibility in pursuing and securing happiness. Now that doesn't mean we don't cooperate with others but it does mean we do not like you all progressive see rights as obligations of society to through government provide for your happiness.

You should quote people who actually understand libertarianism just as you should try to understand it yourself before you criticize.

[Chris]

Every candidate gets a nod, Chris. You can find Chris Christies to Ralph Reeds. The Republican Party does a fairly good job at offering a variety...a diverse platform is discussed. From pro-choice to gun control, from religious right to Tea Party........grass roots endeavors like the Tea Party don't occur in the Dim Parties.....you genius level political experts need to understand, we don't win Presidential elections because we cannot caucus like the Dims can. We do a much better job in local races, we have won back to back House races, we have kept Nancy Pelosi on the sidelines, you should at least appreciate that. You people need to stop your f'n whining and get involved. Establish support for a candidate, give money, encourage others to vote........and then remain dedicated. you aren't going to get your way all the time, others may not see eye to eye, you can snivel on about it and act like a child.......just get to the polls. And vote Republican.

My...but we've some rocket scientists in our party.



True, in the beginning of the election cycle, but as time goes on, it's not. Ron Paul was pushed out by convention time.

Pointing out facts is not whining.

Geniuses, in the party, lol, glad I'm no genius.

[midcan5]

Republicans at CPAC blamed President Obama for a loss of an hour this past weekend. Sarah Palin said while she was busy reading everything, a hour came up missing? Ann Coulter thought that maybe we reverted to Kenya time and Darrell Issa will hold a hearing in which he investigates whether the IRS is behind this change. Speaker Boehner asked Paul Ryan if he noticed the loss and Ryan replied it was a Fed's work. Reince Priebus noted that while he was puzzled over the loss of the Malaysian airline, the loss of an hour puzzled him even more. More to follow as republicans investigate this latest act of the Obama administration.

On a more serious note, can one really be serious when it comes to CPAC? Sarah Palin's comment, a bad guy with a nuke can be stopped by a good guy with a nuke' has to be the stupidest thing she has ever said and she has said some stupid things. This woman is a spokesperson for conservative politics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

[nic34]

Why we exercise out liberty through self-responsibility in pursuing and securing happiness. Now that doesn't mean we don't cooperate with others but it does mean we do not like you all progressive see rights as obligations of society to through government provide for your happiness.

You should quote people who actually understand libertarianism just as you should try to understand it yourself before you criticize.

Oh green eggs and ham?

Well they tried it (libetarianism) in Chile and they booted it, electing Michelle Bachelet.

The problem with liberty through self-responsibility, that mantra of bootstraps self-reliance.... and "if you don't have sufficient income, educate yourself and get a better job"....is that it contradicts the other oft exclaimed "college is for snobs" or there's too many college students doing nothing... not to mention the business of making it a commodity to make money instead of celebrating it as a right and an investment in the future of the nation as a whole. Cons, always talking out both sides of their corrporate mouths...keep folks ignorant, they're easier to control that way.

Oh dam, there's that pesky "as a whole" concept again. Better we just fracture into a miriad of balkan states since that worked out so well...

[Chris]

Oh green eggs and ham?

Well they tried it (libetarianism) in Chile and they booted it, electing Michelle Bachelet.

The problem with liberty through self-responsibility, that mantra of bootstraps self-reliance.... and "if you don't have sufficient income, educate yourself and get a better job"....is that it contradicts the other oft exclaimed "college is for snobs" or there's too many college students doing nothing... not to mention the business of making it a commodity to make money instead of celebrating it as a right and an investment in the future of the nation as a whole. Cons, always talking out both sides of their corrporate mouths...keep folks ignorant, they're easier to control that way.

Oh dam, there's that pesky "as a whole" concept again. Better we just fracture into a miriad of balkan states since that worked out so well...



Chile wasn't libertarian, nic, they got some advice from economist is all. What an old canard that is.



The problem with liberty through self-responsibility, that mantra of bootstraps self-reliance....

Did you even bother to read what I posted, I specifically added the caveat: "Now that doesn't mean we don't cooperate with others...." So, no, I'm not talking about self-reliance, nic, try again.

[nic34]

I specifically added the caveat: "Now that doesn't mean we don't cooperate with others...."

Handy escape hatch...

...and no, Chile is not a 'canard'

The memories of Pinochet’s regime are so raw that to this day, many Chileans refuse to watch soccer matches at the national stadium because they don’t want to dishonor the general’s victims.

Of course, Pinochet didn’t just use the government to silence dissent.

The whole purpose of his coup in the first place was to protect the economic interests of the Chilean elite from President Allende’s socialist policies, and so soon after he took power, Pinochet invited Milton Friedman and his libertarian-leaning Chicago Boys down to Chile to “reform” the economy.

The Chicago Boys slashed government spending and privatized industries, ushering in a new era of harsh austerity measures.
Their policies were, to put it bluntly, a total disaster.

Even though Chile returned to democracy in 1990, Pinochet’s experiment with libertarian economics has had a lasting and painful impact on that country’s economy.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22374-the-failed-libertarian-experiment-in-chile

[Chris]

Handy escape hatch...

...and no, Chile is not a 'canard'

The memories of Pinochet’s regime are so raw that to this day, many Chileans refuse to watch soccer matches at the national stadium because they don’t want to dishonor the general’s victims.

Of course, Pinochet didn’t just use the government to silence dissent.

The whole purpose of his coup in the first place was to protect the economic interests of the Chilean elite from President Allende’s socialist policies, and so soon after he took power, Pinochet invited Milton Friedman and his libertarian-leaning Chicago Boys down to Chile to “reform” the economy.

The Chicago Boys slashed government spending and privatized industries, ushering in a new era of harsh austerity measures.
Their policies were, to put it bluntly, a total disaster.

Even though Chile returned to democracy in 1990, Pinochet’s experiment with libertarian economics has had a lasting and painful impact on that country’s economy.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22374-the-failed-libertarian-experiment-in-chile



Nic, you're getting silly now. When you find something that actually disagrees with my stated position, let me know. Try reading it first, might help you.


And, nic, "The Chicago Boys" were not in charge but asked for advice and were not libertarian.

[bladimz]

But, he's not an Obama liberal Joe. He loves his country, isn't trying to further regulate our economy, wouldn't put a Holder or Rice in Office.Oh, Rand Paul loves his opportunity, his chance at a grab for power. But does he really love his country? Does any politician really love his country? Maybe. But who are we to say for sure.

It always makes me laugh when boneheads rant that Obama hates America, when what they really mean that Obama's policies and ideas don't match their own. It's funny... i can respect that they recognize and dislike the differences between his and their own ideologies, but it's that one step further they take that's upsetting. The word "hate" is added to the mix. I don't remember hearing anyone say that Jimmy Carter "hated" America, or ditto Bill Clinton, or even GWB. So why is it that Obama is the one president in our country's history (apparently) that "hates America"?

I could say that Bush or Reagan hated America, but i won't. I never agreed with their moronic trickle-down economic policies, but i won't say that they "hated America". So my question is: why is it that this president has earned the title of the president who hates America.

I guess it all depends on which America you're talking about.

[Chris]

Oh, Rand Paul loves his opportunity, his chance at a grab for power. But does he really love his country? Does any politician really love his country? Maybe. But who are we to say for sure.

It always makes me laugh when boneheads rant that Obama hates America, when what they really mean that Obama's policies and ideas don't match their own. It's funny... i can respect that they recognize and dislike the differences between his and their own ideologies, but it's that one step further they take that's upsetting. The word "hate" is added to the mix. I don't remember hearing anyone say that Jimmy Carter "hated" America, or ditto Bill Clinton, or even GWB. So why is it that Obama is the one president in our country's history (apparently) that "hates America"?

I could say that Bush or Reagan hated America, but i won't. I never agreed with their moronic trickle-down economic policies, but i won't say that they "hated America". So my question is: why is it that this president has earned the title of the president who hates America.

I guess it all depends on which America you're talking about.



Blad, it took 0.44 seconds to find this and 100s more like it: Rachel Maddow Asks Why Both Presidents George Bush ‘Hate America’ Like Barack Obama (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-asks-why-both-presidents-george-bush-hate-america-like-barack-obama/).

So let's hear the same spiel about that.

[Kabuki Joe]

But, he's not an Obama liberal Joe. He loves his country, isn't trying to further regulate our economy, wouldn't put a Holder or Rice in Office.


...doesn't matter...if I want a liberal in office I'll vote for the demorat nominee...

[bladimz]

Blad, it took 0.44 seconds to find this and 100s more like it: Rachel Maddow Asks Why Both Presidents George Bush ‘Hate America’ Like Barack Obama (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-asks-why-both-presidents-george-bush-hate-america-like-barack-obama/).

So let's hear the same spiel about that.0.44 seconds? Did you personally time that, or are you just taking your browser's word for it...

Where was the rhetoric that announced that "Bush Hates America" while he was in office.

Where was the rhetoric that announced that "Reagan Hates America" while he was in office.

[Chris]

0.44 seconds? Did you personally time that, or are you just taking your browser's word for it...

Where was the rhetoric that announced that "Bush Hates America" while he was in office.

Where was the rhetoric that announced that "Reagan Hates America" while he was in office.

Google told me.

I don't disagree with you that it's disagreeable, I find all emotionalizing of politics trivializing. But it's something partisans--of both stripes, being my point--tend to engage in rather than actually discussing issues.

[bladimz]

Google told me.

I don't disagree with you that it's disagreeable, I find all emotionalizing of politics trivializing. But it's something partisans--of both stripes, being my point--tend to engage in rather than actually discussing issues.I guess an attack is just an attack, after it's all said and done.

[Chris]

I guess an attack is just an attack, after it's all said and done.

Seems to me too many twist attacks against policies against personalities.

[Bob]

I could say that Bush or Reagan hated America, but i won't. I never agreed with their moronic trickle-down economic policies, but i won't say that they "hated America"..

Had you studied Reagan's books and others who worked closely with him, books, you would not call it trickle down.

But what is trickle up if I may be so bold?

Money does flow.

Flows all ways.

But Reagan never called it trickle down.

Who fabricated this claim?

Reagan AND Kennedy believed in cutting taxes. But democrats don't call Kennedy's tax cuts, trickle down.

Strange heh?

[nic34]

Had you studied Reagan's books and others who worked closely with him, books, you would not call it trickle down.

But what is trickle up if I may be so bold?

Money does flow.

Flows all ways.

But Reagan never called it trickle down.

Who fabricated this claim?

Reagan AND Kennedy believed in cutting taxes. But democrats don't call Kennedy's tax cuts, trickle down.

Strange heh?

What were the top tax rates under JFK and what were they after 8 years of Reagan?

Now tell us who essentially paid for all that star wars and military he built up.

(Hint: it wasn't the wealthy)

[Peter1469]

You really don't understand economics, do you.

The wealthy could fund our budget for like 8 months. Then you and your social programs are screwed.

But continue in your bliss.


What were the top tax rates under JFK and what were they after 8 years of Reagan?

Now tell us who essentially paid for all that star wars and military he built up.

(Hint: it wasn't the wealthy)

[nic34]

Yes, I have a bias toward what worked just fine before Reagan handed our economy over to the oligarchs.

[Peter1469]

Yes, I have a bias toward what worked just fine before Reagan handed our economy over to the oligarchs.

You do have an odd view of reality (http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/supplyside-tax-cuts-truth-about-reagan-economic-record).




Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

[CalcW14]

Honestly, I still agree with many conservative principles but their undieing quest to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else, totally turned me off them. The teaparty was responsible for that.
I am a registered independent and from local to national elections I will vote for who I can best determine is the best for the job. Party Affiliation means nothing to me. I will vote for Gop a Dem a libertarian a Green or independent if I think they are the best of the lot.


Me too. I don't care about the designation. I want them to get the job done. That's all.

[Codename Section]

0.44 seconds? Did you personally time that, or are you just taking your browser's word for it...

Where was the rhetoric that announced that "Bush Hates America" while he was in office.

Where was the rhetoric that announced that "Reagan Hates America" while he was in office.


Bush, yes. There was lots of that. Reagan, no.

[Chris]

Progressives, like Marx, assume limitless resources.

[nic34]

Progressives, like Marx, assume limitless resources.

You tell them the alternative, and you'll be real popular. :wink:

[nic34]

Me too. I don't care about the designation. I want them to get the job done. That's all.

According to some their job is to do nothing and agree on nothing.

Kinda leaves you in a quandary...

[nic34]

You do have an odd view of reality (http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/supplyside-tax-cuts-truth-about-reagan-economic-record).

I was comparing the JFK years to the time after 8 years of Reagan.

[Peter1469]

I was comparing the JFK years to the time after 8 years of Reagan.

Running from Reagan's record?

[midcan5]

Running from Reagan's record?

Clinton versus Reagan http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm

Reagan did finally raise taxes and also helped social security, but nothing good held, and Bush Sr lost because the economy eventually collapsed. I do concede Clinton was lucky as the I-bubble and the millennium change created massive spending and lots of jobs.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/01/newsflash-ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-you-idiots/


"Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives–and probably cost Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection–Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84."

[Chris]

You tell them the alternative, and you'll be real popular. :wink:

Better to get elected on lies?

[Chris]

Clinton versus Reagan http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm

Reagan did finally raise taxes and also helped social security, but nothing good held, and Bush Sr lost because the economy eventually collapsed. I do concede Clinton was lucky as the I-bubble and the millennium change created massive spending and lots of jobs.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/01/newsflash-ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-you-idiots/


"Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives–and probably cost Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection–Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84."



I suppose though just like you progressive keep blaming Bush for Obama's presidency, we could blame Reagan/Bush for Clinton's successes.

[Peter1469]

Clinton benefited from the economic policies Reagan put in place. And you did mention the Dot Com thing.


Clinton versus Reagan http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm

Reagan did finally raise taxes and also helped social security, but nothing good held, and Bush Sr lost because the economy eventually collapsed. I do concede Clinton was lucky as the I-bubble and the millennium change created massive spending and lots of jobs.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/01/newsflash-ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-you-idiots/


"Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives–and probably cost Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection–Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84."

[nic34]

Running from Reagan's record?

No, you're in denial that Reagan spent as much or more than JFK, and did it on the backs of the working and middle class....

In addition to lowering taxes on the wealthiest, interest on credit cards were no longer deductible. Same for car payments, child care and medical bills.

[Chris]

And there's that Marxist exploitation theory again, nic. Come up with a different tune.

[Peter1469]

Reagan saved the middle class. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/) He did ask Congress to cut spending and they refused to do so.


No, you're in denial that Reagan spent as much or more than JFK, and did it on the backs of the working and middle class....

In addition to lowering taxes on the wealthiest, interest on credit cards were no longer deductible. Same for car payments, child care and medical bills.

[The Sage of Main Street]

You really don't understand economics, do you?

The wealthy could fund our budget for like 8 months. Then you and your social programs are screwed.
.

With typical dishonesty and lawyerly deviousness, you're referring to the top 1% in salary. Most of the real 1% don't work at all; they live off our work. Net worth is what really counts, and they have $73 trillion. Austerity for them, not for real Americans.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Peter1469 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=546328#post546328)
You really don't understand economics, do you?

The wealthy could fund our budget for like 8 months. Then you and your social programs are screwed.


With typical dishonesty and lawyerly deviousness, you're referring to the top 1% in salary. Most of the real 1% don't work at all; they live off our work. Net worth is what really counts, and they have $73 trillion. Austerity for them, not for real Americans.

Actually, Peter is correct. The Federal government does not tax wealth, they tax income. Upon death, some wealth is then taxed, but by and large, they rip off the public stealing income.

It had to be in the 1970s that I first studied how do people get rich.

While some do get rich on a job, witness workers at Google or Apple prior to stock offerings, the wealth is in company ownership, aka stocks.

Some get rich, witness movie stars, but few are in that class. Sports stars are also a fringe.

I can't understand this hate for the rich.

[Bob]

No, you're in denial that Reagan spent as much or more than JFK, and did it on the backs of the working and middle class....

In addition to lowering taxes on the wealthiest, interest on credit cards were no longer deductible. Same for car payments, child care and medical bills.

That was not done by Reagan. But Reagan did lower taxes on all of us. Not just the rich.

Reagan made a deal with the Democrats but got bull shitted. They flat lied to him.

[Bob]

Reagan saved the middle class. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/) He did ask Congress to cut spending and they refused to do so.

Correct.

[nic34]

Tell all those union workers that were axed how well off they are, and all subsequent workers now getting sub-union wages are just lucky to have jobs and shitty benefits... the reagan revolution still giving...

[Peter1469]

Tell all those union workers that were axed how well off they are, and all subsequent workers now getting sub-union wages are just lucky to have jobs and shitty benefits... the reagan revolution still giving...

Unions have driven their jobs into the ground. Reagan grew them.

[Captain Obvious]

Unions have driven their jobs into the ground. Reagan grew them.

Unions will watch an industry collapse, sucking the last drop of blood out of it, watching the last domestic job go down the shitter before it does anything to save it/them.

Because the institution is the one and only priority. Labor is just an inconvenient afterthought.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Tell all those union workers that were axed how well off they are, and all subsequent workers now getting sub-union wages are just lucky to have jobs and shitty benefits... the Reagan revolution still giving...

The problem is not the wage-gougers, it is the generations of union members who have not been union men. The adults in the neighborhood I grew up in would have been at minimum-wage were it not for unions. But the only advice we got from them, the media-dubbed "Greatest Generation," was to do what the rich told us to do, meekly submit to the plutocrats' self-serving forced "choices." We were told to go to college and live like little boys there. Real union men would have told us to strengthen our unions so that blue-collar workers would make as much as college graduates (as they do with the United Auto Workers). The reason our fathers wanted us to become Boytoys for the Bosses was that their manhood would have been threatened if we had grown up to be strong and defiant.

[midcan5]

Funny how a thread on CPAC traveled to the rich and Reagan. Reagan did nothing for the working stiff, his policies and his firing the Air Traffic controllers simply gave corporations even more power over their employees, now everyone is afraid. Reagan did grow government, raised taxes many times, and helped Social Security. He is a myth today used by the right without having a clue about his lack of any accomplishment. And he was a Keynesian as well, spending for defense and lowering taxes to stimulate the economy. Worked for a bit - and don't forget the S&L debacle. Keeping with the change some interesting stuff below for those who don't follow myths.

As for the rich, knowing many I find them rather useless. Once you have money there is no need to do anything positive. Entrepreneurial wealth is different and often go the way of the dodo or gets eaten up by larger dodos.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/01/newsflash-ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-you-idiots/

"Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives–and probably cost Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection–Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84."


"....there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed"- presidents of the 1970s--Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country." http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ronald-Reagan-Worst-Presi-by-Robert-Parry-090605-584.html

THE REAGAN YEARS (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm#reaganpage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the [b]hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism." http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8

[Mainecoons]

Nic only sees one side of the D.C. clown show. :grin:

[The Sage of Main Street]

Turns out Ryan lied about the little boy. Funny, he made the cons tear up. Cons are easily led. This promises to be another incredibly amusing presidential campaign. I can't see how they can top the last one, though.

Didn't Ryan's Mommy make him a green eggs and ham sandwich and put it in a brown paper bag to eat at CPAC?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Thanks God, can you imagine a World with Conservatives in charge :laugh:

Saudi Arabia.

[The Sage of Main Street]

You really don't understand economics, do you?

The wealthy could fund our budget for like 8 months. . You really don't understand Oinkonomics, do you?

You're basing that on salary, not net worth. The 1% have $73 trillion, which is $25 million for each member of each hereditary dynasty.

[Paperback Writer]

You really don't understand Oinkonomics, do you?

You're basing that on salary, not net worth. The 1% have $73 trillion, which is $25 million for each member of each hereditary dynasty.

The 1% includes everyone from $375K a year salaried to billionaires. I hardly think that surgeons and radiologists are on the same mustache pinching level as the VPs of Goldman's.

Do you?

[The Sage of Main Street]

You do have an odd view of reality (http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/supplyside-tax-cuts-truth-about-reagan-economic-record). The Reagan Boom had nothing to do with his kleptocratic Voodoo Economics. He had frightened OPEC into lowering the oil price they had gouged us on. Remember, gasoline was selling at around a dollar a gallon, dropping way down after Nixon, Ford, and Carter had let the petrocrats push us around?