quit being obtuse.Originally Posted by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
Romney and McCain had to go to the right to get the nomination and couldn't get back to the middle. They had campaigned and put this talking points in the ether for a year or so starting in Iowa and they couldn't get back to the middle.
It might never be too early to start praying that the rest of the country gets the presidential vote right, both in primary nominations and general election.
I say right-of-the-country because Oklahoma always picks the Republican nominee regardless and other than taking Rick Santorum in 2012, we've pretty much gone with whoever's headed for the nominee.
I suppose you have a political point to make but I don't see it.
My point is that the tax system is screwed to favor the rich and that's not right, regardless of politics.
You make more, you are taxed more. At least it should be that way.
Your plan is..........what ??
5-0
BOY HOWDY !!!!
The rich will just tax haven their profits anyways, so what difference does it make if their rate is 35 percent or 100 percentthe tax system is screwed to favor the rich and that's not right
No seriously. They have the army of lawyers and accountants. They won't pay anymore taxes than they want regardless of the law. It's why most jurisdictions have lottery and jock taxes --- new millionaires don't have the means to fight wealth taxes (yet) so the governments get their cuts while they still can.
The bottom 50% don't pay any federal income taxes (and probably little if any state income taxes either). How is that in favor of the rich?
Preposterous! Both those guys LIVE in the middle. I don't know what you think Romneycare in MA is/was, but it's proof Romney isn't a true conservative, and of course, he's still vastly preferable to any democrat.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
OK is fortunate to still have most of the field available on primary election day. They chose Steve Forbes back in the 90's and I was quite proud of my home state for that.(looks like FDR, but acts like Milton Friedman)
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
DOESN'T COUNT to the Leftists' mantra
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
There were some local girls who did a Youtube video song about Santorum. They're probably as much to blame for Oklahoma picking him as Mitt Romney being Mormon
I don't remember much about Steve Forbes' campaign since I was in elementary school at the time, but I remember thinking he seemed a bit socially awkward... something that this era of social media and Internet would have mercilessly mocked if he ran today.
Poor!? Steve isn't much to look at, but he's a truly great person, a leader, and would have been an excellent president. Dole won the nomination in '96, and der Schlickster got reelected.There were some local girls who did a Youtube video song about Santorum. They're probably as much to blame for Oklahoma picking him as Mitt Romney being Mormon
I don't remember much about Steve Forbes' campaign since I was in elementary school at the time, but I remember thinking he seemed a bit socially awkward... something that this era of social media and Internet would have mercilessly mocked if he ran today.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Now now no name callingder Schlickster got reelected
8 years of Bill Clinton likely means we won't get any years of Hillary Clinton. See? Our country does sometimes plan for the future --- get the Clinton out of the way in the 90s so that when our economy needs a better president 20ish years later we might get one.
Preposterous!!!
You're still being obtuse.
http://fair.org/blog/2015/03/24/rebr...rp-right-turn/
Before the 2000 campaign, McCain was consistently among the party’s most conservative members. In the 107th Congress (2001-02), McCain was the sixth most liberal Republican senator, according to the VoteView statistical analysis of voting patterns. In the next congressional session, he was the fourth-most conservative.
And he’s more or less stayed there since. According to VoteView, McCain’s voting record in 2005-06 made him the second-most conservative senator in the 109th Congress, and the eighth-most conservative in the 110th Senate. Outside of McCain’s brief tack to the middle, his overall voting record makes him a reliable member of his party’s caucus.http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-extreme-rightAs for Romney, his reputation as a “moderate” was largely based on his having implemented as governor of Massachusetts a healthcare program inspired by the Heritage Foundation.
When he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he strayed only marginally from those positions, continuing to stress his pro-choice bona fides and even adopted a position on gun control that ran counter to the powerful National Rifle Association. As late as 2008, when he first ran for president, Romney was prone to tout his one major domestic policy initiative – healthcare reform.
Those were the days. As the Republicans have moved consistently further to the right Romney has followed the crowd, adopting increasingly strident political positions. This was true throughout the Republican primary season as Romney, facing off against a motley collection of Tea Party-approved also-rans, was forced to take stances on immigration, government spending, taxes, abortion and a host of other issues favoured by the party's most conservative members but that left him vulnerable to Democratic counterattack.
Illegal immigration is perhaps the best example. It's an issue that is a veritable cri de coeur for the Tea Party and Romney embraced their views to the point where he attacked unpopular Texan governor Rick Perry for insufficient rigour in cutting social services for illegal immigrants in the state. It gave Romney a boost in the Republican primaries but also provides a hint as to why he is losing Hispanic voters to Obama by a 2-1 margin.
But the romancing of the Tea Party continues. Just last week, the Romney campaign ran two controversial ads, one attacking Obama on welfare benefits, the other accusing the president of declaring a war on religion, because of his backing of a provision of the healthcare law that forces businesses to provides contraceptive services to their employees. Both ads are basically made-up attacks; lies for lack of a better word. But the mendacity of the Romney campaign is by now well chronicled.
What's more interesting is the target for them: conservative voters who recoil at the thought of welfare cheats absconding with their taxpayer dollars and religious voters convinced by years of Republican rhetoric that their faith is under assault. Just as Republicans in the Senate have reason to be fearful of the wrath of the Tea Party, so does Romney. Just three weeks before his convention, he is in the uncomfortable position of reassuring the right about his conservative bona fides.If Romney loses in November, which increasingly appears likely, don't expect soul-searching within the Republican party. Instead, conservatives will likely convince themselves their mistake was failing to nominate a true rightwinger
http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/...-gop-strategy/
Foretelling the demise of one Ted Cruz.The danger of the power of the far-right was evident in both Mitt Romney’s and John McCain’s campaigns. Both candidates postured themselves too far to the right in the nomination battle, alienating moderates and losing the general election as a result. John McCain nominated Sarah Palin to appease evangelicals and was then forced to a deal with an unpredictable and uneducated running mate who continually embarrassed him. Mitt Romney did the same by flip-flopping on almost every social position he held as governor of Massachusetts, only furthering the view that he had no legitimate beliefs. The complicated truth for Republicans is that their evangelical base is making it impossible for them to win national elections. As the public’s views on social issues continue to liberalize, the GOP will either have to abandon their solid evangelical voting bloc or continue to lose the moderate vote, and therefore lose the White House.
we can at least hope.
...8 years of Bill Clinton likely means we won't get any years of Hillary Clinton. See? Our country does sometimes plan for the future --- get the Clinton out of the way in the 90s so that when our economy needs a better president 20ish years later we might get one.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Since you've awakened, Rush. Any commentary on the links and cut/paste? Very 8th of me, if I do say so myself.
The "rich don't pay any taxes" is a old Democratic lie that has been around for decades. The problem is that is a falsehood that unfortunately has to be refuted from time to time.
The Top 1%, the folks that have been demonized to the nth degree and have been accused of everything but the holocaust, pay in excess of 35% of the Federal income tax bill. The top 10%? Pay approximately 70% of the total federal income tax bill. As 52 states, the bottom 50% hardly pay anything. The last time I checked it was about 3.5%.
A number you should be more alarmed at is the almost 50 Million Americans that receive food stamps. Or the fact that almost half of all Americans received some form of federal government payment each month. Thanks to the DC politicians who have learned that dishing out more and more government "goodies" helps perpetuates themselves into office for seemingly ever, we now can state that we've become a bona fide welfare state. That virtues like self reliance, personal responsibility and work ethic created the greatest country on earth. And why now we have done everything possible to undermine those virtues, is in a big way why we see this country's slide into what you see today. Sad, very sad.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-----Winston Churchill
My issue is that the capital gains tax decrease. I'm all for cutting out systemic welfare. It's there for when you need it to fill a gap. It's not supposed to be a lifetime program. Does that make me a Pub?
NO it makes you someone with common sense. When LBJ rolled out the "Great Society" in 1965 which the central theme was the "War on Poverty", the welfare programs that were instituted were done so in a very poorly conceived way. To not have had a work requirement, or at least community service requirement in exchange for assistance was for me the beginning of our slide from greatness. It is easy to project that if you reward someone for needing assistance, that over time, you will have more in need of assistance. While at the same time increasing taxes in effect penalizes someone for working. The dependency that ill managed federal government programs, and others that were added through the years, gives a person a plethora of government goodies that make it not only feasible to live on the dole, but it provides a pretty decent quality of life. It is said that in the US one in poverty can have an I-phone, HD TV, computer and a car in the driveway, all at tax payers expense. You recall the soup line a few years back when Michelle Obama visited and everyone in line produced a cell phone.
To be fair, government should not be engaged in "Corporate Welfare" either. Stay out of their business, cut some of the red tape, taxes and silly regulations that affect in a great way whether a business is a success or failure, and let them sink or swim. This has given rise to the "crony capitalism" that you see today. BHO has made this an "art form" with the billions of tax dollars he has distributed to companies he wanted to help, most being green energy companies. It has become shameful, and not at all what the Framers had in mind.
This country I'm afraid is doomed by these very welfare programs. Why? Every time a politician (usually a Republican) comes forward with a plan to determine if the program is still doing what it was initially implemented to do, is the program run efficiently? or is mired in fraud, waste and abuse? And every single time, the Dems come out with a video of Granny being rolled over a cliff, or the GOP is guilty of starving poor little children. The main stream media jumps into the discussion, and the PR battle is won by the Dems....every time. Despite the fact that everyone knows that these programs are fraught with waste. And nothing gets done. And the National debt continues to increase to ever more dangerous levels... and no one cares.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-----Winston Churchill
yup
How do you know if you get there, if you don't know where you are going?..oh and I had 1,713 post on the "other board"..I hate being a rookie again!
ditto yup
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Posting Permissions
