Republican Candidates
- Thread starter stdreb27
- Start date
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
Maybe you could try proving me wrong like maybe once
Nobody took your words out of context and for the record, I haven't gone back and changed any posts like you did. You weren't talking about the language, you referred to him as a 'white Afrikan". One thing we can agree on is time for a change of subject.
Yea okay
... by the way I haven't changed any posts... maybe corrected punctuation or spelling, but that's it. We'll just move on.
Maybe you could try proving me wrong like maybe once
Yea okay
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
McCain isn't a conservative, what does he have to do for people to realise that? Personally I'm voting for the person who more closely matching my ideals
[hr]
the polls. If I take them into account I'm letting the libs influence who I'm going to vote for.
I am going to vote for the person who can defeat Billary V. II. If you read the Club for Growth's ratings of the candidates McCain's record isn't that bad.
What he does bring to the table is a proven ability to broker deals with the other side. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 and they are history unless the GOP takes back the House and Senate and even then it's unlikely they would be in the position to force a renewal on the left wing. Hopefully McCain would be able to get some kind of deal to minimize the damage.
McCain is also someone who is difficult to attack. He is well thought of by both sides in the Senate and the media generally likes him. There's too much outright hate being injected into politics right now. In 1996 Bob Dornan was removed from the house chamber for a day because he made a remark that may or may not have been directed at Clinton where he said "we're going to nail the little booger down". Oh how the times have changed. You hear the crap congressmen and Senators say about Bush? It's getting well out of hand. You wanna see absolutly insane? Let the Hillarbeast get elected. In a perfect world Duncan Hunter would be in a position to win but I just don't see any of these other guys being much better than McCain when you look at the whole package.
McCain isn't a conservative, what does he have to do for people to realise that? Personally I'm voting for the person who more closely matching my ideals
[hr]
the polls. If I take them into account I'm letting the libs influence who I'm going to vote for.
I am going to vote for the person who can defeat Billary V. II. If you read the Club for Growth's ratings of the candidates McCain's record isn't that bad.
What he does bring to the table is a proven ability to broker deals with the other side. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 and they are history unless the GOP takes back the House and Senate and even then it's unlikely they would be in the position to force a renewal on the left wing. Hopefully McCain would be able to get some kind of deal to minimize the damage.
McCain is also someone who is difficult to attack. He is well thought of by both sides in the Senate and the media generally likes him. There's too much outright hate being injected into politics right now. In 1996 Bob Dornan was removed from the house chamber for a day because he made a remark that may or may not have been directed at Clinton where he said "we're going to nail the little booger down". Oh how the times have changed. You hear the crap congressmen and Senators say about Bush? It's getting well out of hand. You wanna see absolutly insane? Let the Hillarbeast get elected. In a perfect world Duncan Hunter would be in a position to win but I just don't see any of these other guys being much better than McCain when you look at the whole package.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
I am going to vote for the person who can defeat Billary V. II. If you read the Club for Growth's ratings of the candidates McCain's record isn't that bad.
What he does bring to the table is a proven ability to broker deals with the other side. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 and they are history unless the GOP takes back the House and Senate and even then it's unlikely they would be in the position to force a renewal on the left wing. Hopefully McCain would be able to get some kind of deal to minimize the damage.
McCain is also someone who is difficult to attack. He is well thought of by both sides in the Senate and the media generally likes him. There's too much outright hate being injected into politics right now. In 1996 Bob Dornan was removed from the house chamber for a day because he made a remark that may or may not have been directed at Clinton where he said "we're going to nail the little booger down". Oh how the times have changed. You hear the crap congressmen and Senators say about Bush? It's getting well out of hand. You wanna see absolutly insane? Let the Hillarbeast get elected. In a perfect world Duncan Hunter would be in a position to win but I just don't see any of these other guys being much better than McCain when you look at the whole package.
man, I'm sorry, but the street in washington doesn't go both ways, Ever heard of robert bork? He was villified by Ted Kennedy before Bob Dornan ever said that. Ted didn't get removed from the floor of the senate. Bush has handed over heads and more heads, and they still aren't happy.
How many times do the Republicans have to pander and "compromise", in the name of unity, to democrats before they realise that the dems won't be happy till they are back in power and will continue their vitriolic rhetoric. McCain didn't support his tax cuts, and his new line, "I support tax cuts with cuts in spending" doesn't echo his arguments when Bush passed them in the 1st term of his presidency. So who is to say McCain is going to pass tax cuts anyway. We'll be asked to "sacrifice" while he "works" to reduce spending. And we know the Government NEVER reducing spending, unless it is the military and NASA.
I am going to vote for the person who can defeat Billary V. II. If you read the Club for Growth's ratings of the candidates McCain's record isn't that bad.
What he does bring to the table is a proven ability to broker deals with the other side. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 and they are history unless the GOP takes back the House and Senate and even then it's unlikely they would be in the position to force a renewal on the left wing. Hopefully McCain would be able to get some kind of deal to minimize the damage.
McCain is also someone who is difficult to attack. He is well thought of by both sides in the Senate and the media generally likes him. There's too much outright hate being injected into politics right now. In 1996 Bob Dornan was removed from the house chamber for a day because he made a remark that may or may not have been directed at Clinton where he said "we're going to nail the little booger down". Oh how the times have changed. You hear the crap congressmen and Senators say about Bush? It's getting well out of hand. You wanna see absolutly insane? Let the Hillarbeast get elected. In a perfect world Duncan Hunter would be in a position to win but I just don't see any of these other guys being much better than McCain when you look at the whole package.
man, I'm sorry, but the street in washington doesn't go both ways, Ever heard of robert bork? He was villified by Ted Kennedy before Bob Dornan ever said that. Ted didn't get removed from the floor of the senate. Bush has handed over heads and more heads, and they still aren't happy.
How many times do the Republicans have to pander and "compromise", in the name of unity, to democrats before they realise that the dems won't be happy till they are back in power and will continue their vitriolic rhetoric. McCain didn't support his tax cuts, and his new line, "I support tax cuts with cuts in spending" doesn't echo his arguments when Bush passed them in the 1st term of his presidency. So who is to say McCain is going to pass tax cuts anyway. We'll be asked to "sacrifice" while he "works" to reduce spending. And we know the Government NEVER reducing spending, unless it is the military and NASA.
reefraff
Active Member
You think we'll be better off with Hillary? I repeat, the current tax cuts are gone. Would you rather lose them all or have someone who will work with the other side to at least keep some of them? "Compromise" is not a bad thing. It lead to Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. Not a bad thing.
What happened to Bork was wrong, Thomas too but remember, those men weren't a sitting president when they were attacked.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
man, I'm sorry, but the street in washington doesn't go both ways, Ever heard of robert bork? He was villified by Ted Kennedy before Bob Dornan ever said that. Ted didn't get removed from the floor of the senate. Bush has handed over heads and more heads, and they still aren't happy.
How many times do the Republicans have to pander and "compromise", in the name of unity, to democrats before they realise that the dems won't be happy till they are back in power and will continue their vitriolic rhetoric. McCain didn't support his tax cuts, and his new line, "I support tax cuts with cuts in spending" doesn't echo his arguments when Bush passed them in the 1st term of his presidency. So who is to say McCain is going to pass tax cuts anyway. We'll be asked to "sacrifice" while he "works" to reduce spending. And we know the Government NEVER reducing spending, unless it is the military and NASA.
What happened to Bork was wrong, Thomas too but remember, those men weren't a sitting president when they were attacked.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
man, I'm sorry, but the street in washington doesn't go both ways, Ever heard of robert bork? He was villified by Ted Kennedy before Bob Dornan ever said that. Ted didn't get removed from the floor of the senate. Bush has handed over heads and more heads, and they still aren't happy.
How many times do the Republicans have to pander and "compromise", in the name of unity, to democrats before they realise that the dems won't be happy till they are back in power and will continue their vitriolic rhetoric. McCain didn't support his tax cuts, and his new line, "I support tax cuts with cuts in spending" doesn't echo his arguments when Bush passed them in the 1st term of his presidency. So who is to say McCain is going to pass tax cuts anyway. We'll be asked to "sacrifice" while he "works" to reduce spending. And we know the Government NEVER reducing spending, unless it is the military and NASA.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
....How many times do the Republicans have to pander and "compromise", in the name of unity, to democrats before they realise that the dems won't be happy till they are back in power and will continue their vitriolic rhetoric. ....
AMEN
....How many times do the Republicans have to pander and "compromise", in the name of unity, to democrats before they realise that the dems won't be happy till they are back in power and will continue their vitriolic rhetoric. ....
AMEN
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
You think we'll be better off with Hillary? I repeat, the current tax cuts are gone. Would you rather lose them all or have someone who will work with the other side to at least keep some of them? "Compromise" is not a bad thing. It lead to Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. Not a bad thing.
What happened to Bork was wrong, Thomas too but remember, those men weren't a sitting president when they were attacked.
I don't think it matters who it is said about, if it is wrong to say then it is wrong to say, whether you're talking about me, or the prez of the united states. I would say that the forum in which you say it may make a difference, but both of these things were said in congress. If you really think that there is anything McCain or anyone can do as a republican to pacify these people you are decieved.
You think we'll be better off with Hillary? I repeat, the current tax cuts are gone. Would you rather lose them all or have someone who will work with the other side to at least keep some of them? "Compromise" is not a bad thing. It lead to Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. Not a bad thing.
What happened to Bork was wrong, Thomas too but remember, those men weren't a sitting president when they were attacked.
I don't think it matters who it is said about, if it is wrong to say then it is wrong to say, whether you're talking about me, or the prez of the united states. I would say that the forum in which you say it may make a difference, but both of these things were said in congress. If you really think that there is anything McCain or anyone can do as a republican to pacify these people you are decieved.
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
If everyone were insured... healthcare would be less because hospitals would no longer have to cover the costs of those who have no insurance.
Wrong in my opinion and here is why....study the plan...read on regarding the downfall of this experiment of the mind
Obama would establish a "play or pay" system under which employers would be required to provide their workers with health insurance or pay a payroll tax to fund government-provided insurance. There are two big problems with this approach. First, it flies in the face of basic economics. The amount of compensation a worker receives is a function of his productivity, and an employer is indifferent as to whether that compensation is in the form of wages, taxes, health insurance, or other benefits. Such a mandate simply increases the cost of hiring workers without increasing their productivity. Employers will therefore have to find ways to offset the added costs. This they can do by raising prices, lowering wages or reducing future wage increases, reducing other benefits such as pensions, or hiring fewer workers. Almost certainly, employees will be the net losers under such a mandate, with the low-skilled suffering most.
Second, an employer mandate locks us further into an employment-based health insurance system at a time when there is a growing bipartisan consensus that we should be moving in the opposite direction. There is no logical reason for tying health insurance to employment. There are many good reasons for not doing so.
At the same time, he looks right to call for a Massachusetts-style insurance "connector," an idea being promoted by the Heritage Foundation among others. (Obama calls it "an exchange.") The exchange would allow workers to purchase individual health insurance with pre-tax dollars, leveling the playing field for individual insurance and giving workers the chance to buy personal and portable insurance — a good idea. The problem is that "exchanges" are also regulatory bodies. Indeed, Obama wants the "exchange" to regulate all sorts of things, including minimum benefit packages, premium caps, limits on copayments
If everyone were insured... healthcare would be less because hospitals would no longer have to cover the costs of those who have no insurance.
Wrong in my opinion and here is why....study the plan...read on regarding the downfall of this experiment of the mind
Obama would establish a "play or pay" system under which employers would be required to provide their workers with health insurance or pay a payroll tax to fund government-provided insurance. There are two big problems with this approach. First, it flies in the face of basic economics. The amount of compensation a worker receives is a function of his productivity, and an employer is indifferent as to whether that compensation is in the form of wages, taxes, health insurance, or other benefits. Such a mandate simply increases the cost of hiring workers without increasing their productivity. Employers will therefore have to find ways to offset the added costs. This they can do by raising prices, lowering wages or reducing future wage increases, reducing other benefits such as pensions, or hiring fewer workers. Almost certainly, employees will be the net losers under such a mandate, with the low-skilled suffering most.
Second, an employer mandate locks us further into an employment-based health insurance system at a time when there is a growing bipartisan consensus that we should be moving in the opposite direction. There is no logical reason for tying health insurance to employment. There are many good reasons for not doing so.
At the same time, he looks right to call for a Massachusetts-style insurance "connector," an idea being promoted by the Heritage Foundation among others. (Obama calls it "an exchange.") The exchange would allow workers to purchase individual health insurance with pre-tax dollars, leveling the playing field for individual insurance and giving workers the chance to buy personal and portable insurance — a good idea. The problem is that "exchanges" are also regulatory bodies. Indeed, Obama wants the "exchange" to regulate all sorts of things, including minimum benefit packages, premium caps, limits on copayments
scubadoo
Active Member
The Republican that is tough on terror is the one that will get my vote. This in my opinion is the most important aspect of the upcoming election.
That being said...I've yet to make up my mind and settle on the one I feel will continue on with the war against terror.
Unfortunalely, the bad guys will not cut and run if we decide to cut and run...they will continue on...and so must we.
I don't want Ali Baba sending dirty bombs to my backyard. Other issues are important...but national security is most important .
I plan on starting with that single issue..then working down the list from there to arrive at a choice.
JMO
That being said...I've yet to make up my mind and settle on the one I feel will continue on with the war against terror.
Unfortunalely, the bad guys will not cut and run if we decide to cut and run...they will continue on...and so must we.
I don't want Ali Baba sending dirty bombs to my backyard. Other issues are important...but national security is most important .
I plan on starting with that single issue..then working down the list from there to arrive at a choice.
JMO
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
If you really think that there is anything McCain or anyone can do as a republican to pacify these people you are decieved.
They said that when Reagan was first elected. If you can get the people behind you it scares the hell out of the opposition.
If you really think that there is anything McCain or anyone can do as a republican to pacify these people you are decieved.
They said that when Reagan was first elected. If you can get the people behind you it scares the hell out of the opposition.
reefraff
Active Member
The state madates on insurance coverage adds to insurance costs. If congress would pass a law where you could shop insurance policies across state lines it would help a little. The real problem is caused by CYA medicine the outragous lawsuits cause. Whether we end up with socialized healthcare or it remains private party the issue of tort reform is going to have to be dealt with.
mfp1016
Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
Regan died before the libs started saying nice things about him.
They also called Reagan a cowboy etc. just like Bush. As always liberals will truly embrace their 20/20 hindsight and eventually Bush we be given credit he deserves.
In regards to the topic, I'm waiting for South Carolina and to see who drops out before I make up my mind.
Unfortunately, as my support for Guiliani has grown over the last week or two, I have seen him slide and highly doubt he will make it to Super Tuesday or after.
IMHO, Romney's views on business are skewed and flip flop, ie his allusion to Corporate Welfare when he said "he won't stand by while American industries fail." To me this demonstrates his willingness to say whatever people want him to say. Look at him as the head of Bain versus him on the campaign trail. One a corporate raider-type who really turned those companies around and did amazing things, while the other isn't going to let American jobs slip, hes going to help the industries out? In what way? What does this mean?
McCain. I keep hearing about how he will pick up the moderate Dem and indep. vote; but I have news for you, he is one, and thats why he may get those votes. Granted I'd be more willing to have him over Obama and Hiliary; but until McCain's name is the only one I see, I won't be supporting him.
Thompson. I like him. Most don't. If you don't like him, please explain why to me.
Huckabee. His politics are ok, but his open-mic approach to debates and rallies has left open to saying stupid things like, amending the constitution for God, etc. I know what he means, and I agree; but I also weigh a candidates ability to talk candidly with great importance.
Regan died before the libs started saying nice things about him.
They also called Reagan a cowboy etc. just like Bush. As always liberals will truly embrace their 20/20 hindsight and eventually Bush we be given credit he deserves.
In regards to the topic, I'm waiting for South Carolina and to see who drops out before I make up my mind.
Unfortunately, as my support for Guiliani has grown over the last week or two, I have seen him slide and highly doubt he will make it to Super Tuesday or after.
IMHO, Romney's views on business are skewed and flip flop, ie his allusion to Corporate Welfare when he said "he won't stand by while American industries fail." To me this demonstrates his willingness to say whatever people want him to say. Look at him as the head of Bain versus him on the campaign trail. One a corporate raider-type who really turned those companies around and did amazing things, while the other isn't going to let American jobs slip, hes going to help the industries out? In what way? What does this mean?
McCain. I keep hearing about how he will pick up the moderate Dem and indep. vote; but I have news for you, he is one, and thats why he may get those votes. Granted I'd be more willing to have him over Obama and Hiliary; but until McCain's name is the only one I see, I won't be supporting him.
Thompson. I like him. Most don't. If you don't like him, please explain why to me.
Huckabee. His politics are ok, but his open-mic approach to debates and rallies has left open to saying stupid things like, amending the constitution for God, etc. I know what he means, and I agree; but I also weigh a candidates ability to talk candidly with great importance.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
The Republican Congress has done it since Newt left.
They have tried. All I'm saying is that if a republican is going to try to win over liberals by being liberal their efforts are going to be futile, because they have the real deal and don't have to settle for someone who is riding the fence. This whole "independent voter" thing is a misnomer. And a title people wear when they want to be courted by morons in politics. I don't see the democrats being more conservative to cater to these "independant voters." Why would the republicans have to be more liberal?
It just doesn't make sense to me.
The Republican Congress has done it since Newt left.
They have tried. All I'm saying is that if a republican is going to try to win over liberals by being liberal their efforts are going to be futile, because they have the real deal and don't have to settle for someone who is riding the fence. This whole "independent voter" thing is a misnomer. And a title people wear when they want to be courted by morons in politics. I don't see the democrats being more conservative to cater to these "independant voters." Why would the republicans have to be more liberal?
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
You think McCain is a liberal?
yeah, against tax cuts, McCain Feingold act, his secret immagration plan, supports global warming hoax, gang of 14, he is no conservative.
What is especially troubling he vetoed the Bush tax cuts calling them a "tax break for the Rich" Sounds like something harry reid would say.
You think McCain is a liberal?
yeah, against tax cuts, McCain Feingold act, his secret immagration plan, supports global warming hoax, gang of 14, he is no conservative.
What is especially troubling he vetoed the Bush tax cuts calling them a "tax break for the Rich" Sounds like something harry reid would say.