Yes, I am actually being serious...

fishtaco

fishtaco

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234291
I don't think the last election was a referendum on anything but people wanting something different. Ron Paul will never win the Republican nomination but if he did I believe he would win for the very same reason
He just won the CPAC straw poll.

Fishtaco
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3234286
Enlighten me Darth. I feel my comment was valid and the last election was a clear rejection of the social conservatism Bush represented regardless of if you voted Paul or Obama.
Fishtaco
Obama and fiscal conservatism do not go hand in hand.
Here is why. The "media" claims Bush's deficit at the end of his last term was around 800 billion. Yet they ignore his tarp plan that was actually a loan. You remove this since it was "loan" and his deficit is around 400 billion. Now Obama gets in office and his first year is a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. BUT this is weith tarp funds coming back in. So he has tripled the deficit in one year, even with bank payments coming in to offset the deficit.
How exactly is he a fiscal conservative?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3234290
There might not be a mandate to redistribute the wealth by taking it from the wealthy, but please remember that holds true when the situation is reversed as well.
Fishtaco
?
 
fishtaco

fishtaco

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3234296
Obama and fiscal conservatism do not go hand in hand.
Here is why. The "media" claims Bush's deficit at the end of his last term was around 800 billion. Yet they ignore his tarp plan that was actually a loan. You remove this since it was "loan" and his deficit is around 400 billion. Now Obama gets in office and his first year is a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. BUT this is weith tarp funds coming back in. So he has tripled the deficit in one year, even with bank payments coming in to offset the deficit.
How exactly is he a fiscal conservative?
I don't think Obama is a fiscal conservative, just trying to explain how someone could possibly vote for Obama or Paul because they are sick of business as usual in D.C. Obama of course has fallen far short of his campaign promises. The mandate was to get rid of Bush at any cost throughout the country and the election results proved that and I do still think many liberals and Dems would have gladly voted Paul into office if he was running on a third party ticket against McCain/Palin if that's what it took to keep McCain out of office.
Most of the liberals I know are hippies who hate the GOP, tolerate the Dems and want government out of their lives so they can live their alternate lifestyles. That is why I think if they took the time to listen to Ron Pauls message they would find much that they agree with.
This is just my experience, but the liberalism I grew up with did not have much to do with more spending in government or handouts, I do remember plenty of protests though against government in general and the policies they did not agree with like just about any war and enviromental issues.
Fishtaco
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3232503
Alright, so I keep hearing this rallying cry (especially now that the CPAC is meeting) about how the GOP and conservatives are making a big comeback politically. Fair enough.
As a liberal, I am not overly familiar with what the conservative point of view would be to turn the ship around. I saw what the last (semi) conservative regime did (2000-2008) and wasn't overly impressed.
So pretend I'm an undecided voter (which I could very well be soon), and you want to win me over with your political ideologies. Tell me Mr. Conservative, why I should go with you..
And, go!
10% unemployment
if inflation also hits 10% will that be enough?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234269
Maybe if the liberal snobs would quite running their mouths for 2 seconds they would hear what people are or aren't complaining about.

Nice thing about state government is it is possible to term limit politicians. Only office on the national level with term limits is president/vice president.
And what, Texas cant cut spending on things like 500 million dollar stadiums? It's a lot easier to get the attention of your state representative than a Congressman or Senator.
The only term limits I know of in Texas are my local mayor and city council. Our illustrious Governor Rick Perry is running for I think his third term, and most likely will win. Our State Reps are no more or less accessible than our national ones. I actually was able to get on a phone conference one time with my US Senator. He was on the line for over an hour taking any and all questions, no matter how controversial they were. My local State Rep wouldn't give me the time of day, unless it's an election year. Then my home phone is barraged with his stupid automated phone messages.
 
fishtaco

fishtaco

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234298
Which means N O T H I N G, Do you know who won the last straw poll

I probably could not handle it. Anyway, it has been great debating with you guys today while I wasted my day watching my septic tanks problems being solved by honest and kind hearted working class Americans, but they are almost done and I need to go right a check and offer them some of my homebrews for a job well done. Thank goodness the government was kind enough to hold onto my money and send it back this week so I could stimulate the economy this way. I don't want to describe what happened really, but lets just say it was an emergency. LOL....sniff.
Fishtaco
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3234268
I am going to say it again.
You said state level....was also just as bad. Yet now once I point out the state level isn't bad, you bring up county and city taxes....
Oh, and average state property tax places texas at around 15. average tax collection is around 1500 per capita. When you add that in total tax revenue you guys still don't break the top 25 in total tax revenue collected within state..
While your property tax per year averages out to about 300 dollars more per capita than california, you guys still don't come near their taxes of many other states . No wonder you don't mind a tax increase on the federal level, you don't pay what half of the union already does....
If you don't like your tax rate on a 350,000 dollar house, don't buy a 350,000 dollar house. You don't NEED 350,000 dollar house.
Now there's a thought. Go live in a metal shack on the Southside because I don't NEED the house I can easily afford. I also don't need my boat or my five cars, but I'm not assessed outrageous property taxes on those. Taxes are taxes, regardless if they're state, county, or city. I could care less where Texas ranks 'per capita' against other states. It's my total tax rate that I pay after ALL taxes are assessed is where the comparison should be.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3234302
I don't think Obama is a fiscal conservative, just trying to explain how someone could possibly vote for Obama or Paul because they are sick of business as usual in D.C. Obama of course has fallen far short of his campaign promises. The mandate was to get rid of Bush at any cost throughout the country and the election results proved that and I do still think many liberals and Dems would have gladly voted Paul into office if he was running on a third party ticket against McCain/Palin if that's what it took to keep McCain out of office.
Most of the liberals I know are hippies who hate the GOP, tolerate the Dems and want government out of their lives so they can live their alternate lifestyles. That is why I think if they took the time to listen to Ron Pauls message they would find much that they agree with.
This is just my experience, but the liberalism I grew up with did not have much to do with more spending in government or handouts, I do remember plenty of protests though against government in general and the policies they did not agree with like just about any war and enviromental issues.
Fishtaco
I'm simply pointing out if someone is telling me they are considering voting for a strict constitutionalists (even if I don't agree with some of his conclusions) and Obama someone who said the Warren Court wasn't radical enough. Then they're ignorant.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3234302
I don't think Obama is a fiscal conservative, just trying to explain how someone could possibly vote for Obama or Paul because they are sick of business as usual in D.C. Obama of course has fallen far short of his campaign promises. The mandate was to get rid of Bush at any cost throughout the country and the election results proved that and I do still think many liberals and Dems would have gladly voted Paul into office if he was running on a third party ticket against McCain/Palin if that's what it took to keep McCain out of office.
Most of the liberals I know are hippies who hate the GOP, tolerate the Dems and want government out of their lives so they can live their alternate lifestyles. That is why I think if they took the time to listen to Ron Pauls message they would find much that they agree with.
This is just my experience, but the liberalism I grew up with did not have much to do with more spending in government or handouts, I do remember plenty of protests though against government in general and the policies they did not agree with like just about any war and enviromental issues.
Fishtaco
I can completely see you point about voting for something different, I voted for Perot in 92'
My only question is do you miss Bush yet?
I didn't think Papa deserved a second term in 92. By the end of 93 I had a whole different take on that.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234304
The only term limits I know of in Texas are my local mayor and city council. Our illustrious Governor Rick Perry is running for I think his third term, and most likely will win. Our State Reps are no more or less accessible than our national ones. I actually was able to get on a phone conference one time with my US Senator. He was on the line for over an hour taking any and all questions, no matter how controversial they were. My local State Rep wouldn't give me the time of day, unless it's an election year. Then my home phone is barraged with his stupid automated phone messages.
But with the state, at least most you have the option of using the referendum process to enact term limits if you wish. That is the big difference. If the state lawmakers will not act the people can go around them.
If you want to talk to your state rep bad enough you can go knock on their front door. How many congressmen or senators maintain a household in your state where they are there most of the time?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234322
But with the state, at least most you have the option of using the referendum process to enact term limits if you wish. That is the big difference. If the state lawmakers will not act the people can go around them.
If you want to talk to your state rep bad enough you can go knock on their front door. How many congressmen or senators maintain a household in your state where they are there most of the time?
Actually, when Henry Bonilla was my US House Rep, I know people who used to sit down and drink beer with him when he was in town during off-sessions. His former wife was a local newscaster, and I ran into them at NIOSA, one of San Antonio's biggest festivals. He never had a problem talking to his constituents.
If the American voters wanted to press the issue about term limits for US Senators and House Reps, it could be done. I suppose it would take an Amendment change, but if all these groups that are railing against the Federal Government today banded together, they could force the issue. No one in Washington is above the voting public in this country. They are just elected officials. Not tenured professors at some college that can't be removed from their office.
"You're either with us, or agin' us. If you choose the latter, you lose."
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234137
And you wonder why the Constitutionlists want the states to have more power. They want to have less Federal Govt. involvement, yet State Govt's are just as corrupt and screw 'the people' more than the Feds do. I just read an article this morning that state tax revenues are at an all-time low due to the recession. So their only alternative is to RAISE TAXES. But you don't hear these Tea Baggers screaming and complaining about their state governments raising taxes, creating tolls for roads that are already paid for, forcing kids to take State mandated tests, or raising fees for state services. Texas has one of the lowest performing educational systems in the nation, but my local school board is wanting yet another $500 million bond to build even more schools. They want $25 million of it to go to an outdoor Olympic-style Natatorium (one with the high diving platforms, auditorium seating, etc.) This is for HIGH SCHOOL'S. We just had a $750 million bond package two years ago. They do these bond initiatives every two years, and they pass with flying colors. Yea, state and local governments are great.

You ever read ANY of my posts about paying $90,000 in State death tax went my dad passed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top