Gettin out the vote

[Unbreakable]

Wanted to maximize my vote today in the NH primary election.
Couldn't quite decide which candidate had the best skills to lead our country for the next four years....

So I cast my ballot for the candidate that will be instrumental at ensuring victory for the Republican Nominee. I voted for Hillary Clinton.:p

[MTBME]

Boy did those results suck. How much did that teary eyed display help with the sympathy vote? I think I have another take on what happened last night. My sister and her husband live in Keene NH. They are registered Independants that lean Republican. They were going to vote for Obama as a way of holding off Hillary. But with the polls predicting a hugh Obama victory, they figured Obama didn't need there help and they voted Republican. I wonder how many other Independants might have done the same.

[Slider]

Even Republicans are having trouble getting behind their candidates. I'd guess most of the Independents are disgusted former Republicans. Stories like this are the source of their disgust. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/us/09email.html

Hillary got out the women. McCain got out the few that haven't yet seen the war as a terrible mistake or worse.

Slider

[kernel crash]

I smell a rat here. They ran out of ballots and had to go out to get more. Were they all ready filled out for Hillary? I mean do you put anything past the Clintons. Let see if the Bush stole the election crowd remains silent on the sidelines. I know for a fact that many Clinton supporters were bussed in from Mass and NY. I wonder how many of them got to vote? Hey how do you lose a double digit lead in less than 24 hours.

[MTBME]

Hey how sleazy did red face Bill Clinton look when he attacked Obama's campaign as the greatest fairy tale he's even seen. (The real fairy tale is Hillarys 35 years of experience.) Then you had Hillary reminding people that Obama is no Martin Luther King. Oh really. I didn't know that. Then you had a campaign aide for Hillary throwing out the remark about assasination knowing that the black community has reservations in the back of their mind about Obama being a target for assasination. Now I'm remembering why I hate this crowd. Do we really want another 8 years of this!!! On second thought hold off on that border fence. We may have a huge migration heading South next year. WTF!

[FriedRys]

They ALL suck, I don't trust anyone in politics. These people don't run for office out of a sense of altruism, but megalomania.

I'm voting for Bubbles.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You knew things were going to be bad for the Republicans when they sparred in the most recent debate over who more strongly supports George Bush, and who supported him first. I guess they don't believe the polls that show a mere 29% approval rate for the President and is likely they main reason why Guiliani is floundering. It is obvious to most people with intellects outside of Utah and Idaho and fundamental Christian strongholds that Romney and Huckabee are a couple of charlatans. Jay Severin is out of his mind.

It looks like this primaries picture will remain muddled until Super Tuesday. This could be the year for the Democrats. Considering the alternatives, I don't see a rosy picture whichever way you look at it. I think the Republican National Committee made a big mistake by not supporting Ron Paul, to me the only truly principled candidate on either side next to Kucinich.

How pathetic is Fred Thompson looking? Why did he even bother?

[Enigma]

Bubbles the Showgirl!

[NembaHobbit]

On a separate but related topic, I count myself fortunate to have attended two of the tapings of readings from Howard Zinn's book in Boston last night and Tuesday. Last night's topic was war, and the readings went all the way back to the 16th century & Columbus. I found it amazing and frightening that virtually all of these courageous & impassioned statements against wars in centuries past would be largely accurate and entirely appropriate in today's editorial page.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[catbbq]

On a separate but related topic, I count myself fortunate to have attended two of the tapings of readings from Howard Zinn's book in Boston last night and Tuesday. Last night's topic was war, and the readings went all the way back to the 16th century & Columbus. I found it amazing and frightening that virtually all of these courageous & impassioned statements against wars in centuries past would be largely accurate and entirely appropriate in today's editorial page.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

My wife got me that book before we came to Europe. I started reading it, but God it is depressing. I don't doubt that many of the things he is saying is true, but I also know he has spun up events in the worst possible light. I finally stopped reading it about about the first 75 pages. Maybe, when I leave Belgium and have more than 5 hours of daylight a day, I might try reading it again.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Are you referring to A People's History or one of his more recent books? I read his first revised edition back in '95 and remember enjoying it's refreshing truth. Many on the political right tend to dismiss Zinn because of his political views and decidedly anti-Bush slant. Don't let that take away from his ability as a researcher and historian. If nothing else, he should be lauded for his continued attempts to strip away the cleaned up version of history that has mostly been taught to students. History isn't supposed to be happy.

[Unbreakable]

..... History isn't supposed to be happy.

With the political hacks we have feeding at the public trough, our history will not be happy for a long time to come.

[Slider]

Lessee... last Dem pres, robust economy, mostly peace, and nary a hint of treason. Two Bush terms later, we in very deep ****.

Let's talk again in a few years. If the coming Democratic president can climb even halfway outta the mess he/she is being handed, life will look lots better.

But the recession is coming, and that is the biggest problem. The Fed is now clueless, and we are without several hundred billion dollars thanks to the Iraq war. Tough hand to play. Just remember who dealt it.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

Lessee... last Dem pres, robust economy, mostly peace, and nary a hint of treason. Two Bush terms later, we in very deep ****.

Let's talk again in a few years. If the coming Democratic president can climb even halfway outta the mess he/she is being handed, life will look lots better.

But the recession is coming, and that is the biggest problem. The Fed is now clueless, and we are without several hundred billion dollars thanks to the Iraq war. Tough hand to play. Just remember who dealt it.

Slider

Last Democratic President, riding the still continuing wave of economic expansion that began under President Ronald Reagan (R).

If you call peace ignoring overt terrorist activities and war crimes in Bosnia, well that's your take.

Nary a hint of treason only because Clinton was far more preoccupied with dipping his noodle.

It's all a matter of perspective. Let go of your anger and you will see more clearly.

[Slappy]

Neither Barak or Hillary is realistically electable IMO.
Better luck in 2012.

[Slider]

Last Democratic President, riding the still continuing wave of economic expansion that began under President Ronald Reagan (R).

If you call peace ignoring overt terrorist activities and war crimes in Bosnia, well that's your take.

Nary a hint of treason only because Clinton was far more preoccupied with dipping his noodle.

It's all a matter of perspective. Let go of your anger and you will see more clearly.

You are joking about Reagan, right? He ran up the deficit to immense proportions, and anyone can live well on credit until the bills come due. You really need to take a closer look. Like him, Bush ran the deficit up too, but that was via handouts to his corporate sponsors, so it doesn't come back in the form of an economic boost. It was Clinton that set the books straight after the Reagan spending orgy.

I call peace peace. I call Iraq a disaster.

Personally, and I think most of the rest of the country agreed since the Republicans themselves caved on the impeachment, no one GAF about Clinton's noodle. Stop obessing. It isn't healthy.

This one is a riot: "Let go of your anger and you will see more clearly."
The problem here is that you CAN'T see clearly, and have no clue when to get angry, or what to get angry about.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

Stop it Monica!

[kernel crash]

Neither Barak or Hillary is realistically electable IMO.
Better luck in 2012.

I wish that were so but I'm not as confident as you on that one. Hillary scares the crap out of me. Look how she raised herself from the dead. Boo Hoo. I'm losing. People are buying into it. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[kernel crash]

Lessee... last Dem pres, robust economy, mostly peace, and nary a hint of treason. Two Bush terms later, we in very deep ****.

Let's talk again in a few years. If the coming Democratic president can climb even halfway outta the mess he/she is being handed, life will look lots better.

But the recession is coming, and that is the biggest problem. The Fed is now clueless, and we are without several hundred billion dollars thanks to the Iraq war. Tough hand to play. Just remember who dealt it.

Slider

Slider your forgetting how Clinton sold us out on NAFTA and Gatt. And don't forget the transfer of technology to the Chinese under his watch. By the way, I'm still wondering just what documents did Sandy Berger steal and destroy from the National Archives. Can you say obstruction of Justice. Oh there's plenty more of that to go around. The plot to take down the twin towers was being planned under Clinton's watch. Just what did those documents reveal? We'll never known will we.

[Slider]

I'm not heading down that conspiracist, paranoid rat hole. Been there, done that.

Slider

[S2RT]

I wish that were so but I'm not as confident as you on that one. Hillary scares the crap out of me. Look how she raised herself from the dead. Boo Hoo. I'm losing. People are buying into it. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Yeah but don't you remember Patsy Schroeder's meltdown? Boo frickity Hoo! Reminded me of Ed Muskie bawling in the snowstorm, allegedly cuz some Republican henchman slipped him some LSD. Alligator tears won't win her the big prize.
Hillary doesn't even get the women's vote. Mathematically she can't get elected. Not to mention the fact that she has NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER! Not even, and especially as a good marital partner. Barack may be charismatic enough to carry the nomination, but he's got nothin either.

Nor for that matter do any of the Republicans except one.

RON PAUL 2008!

[Slider]

Ron Paul has great experience writing newsletters. I'm guessing you subscribe.

Slider

[Slider]

I was thinking about the Reagan/Clinton economic thing. Try this.

Reagan's economic boost, real if credit-based, flipped a swith. Money, growth, prosperity. But there needed to be some sort of economic braking mechanism. Clinton.

No overriding economic philosophy, just the right policy at the right time.

Too bad our political structure doesn't encourage the longer term thinking that would recreate this regularly. Or, maybe, it does.

Slider

[MTBME]

Money, growth, prosperity. But there needed to be some sort of economic braking mechanism. Clinton.

Slider

Clinton? No. Try the Republican takeover of the house engineered by Newt. And as far as Regan running up the deficit, that's a small price to pay to end the cold war and all the expense associated with that.

[Unbreakable]

I was thinking ........
Reagan's economic boost, real if credit-based, flipped a swith. Money, growth, prosperity. But there needed to be some sort of economic braking mechanism. Clinton.

Slider


:har::har::har:

[Slider]

Read the history. Many bills presented to Clinton, including "liberal" ones, were vetoed for budget reasons. Those bills were generated by that Republican majority you mistakenly think was acting to rein in the spending. Smoke and mirrors. The Republican House under Newt was about handing tax dollars back to rich Americans, not about cutting spending.

Reagan ran the deficit to record levels. Clinton got us back on our feet. Bush squandered all of it.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

is really quite amusing.

[BG]

Used to be my favorite mag...

[noreaster]

How is it that the people who claim to be fiscal conservatives don't seem to care that their politicians run up the federal credit card bills, and Clinton (I'm not particularly a fan of either) balanced the budget.

And, how can the moral voters who hung Clinton for his "corruption" ignore than more members of Reagans' administration were corrupt than any other in the 20th century.

You probably won't like the source… but if you look the people up, either they'll be indicted or not… <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/194133/16> They say 138 employees "corrupt" and cites 21 specifically. Compares to 8 in Nixon's.

And let's be frank… history is revealing that the Soviet Union's military might was a bit trumped up, anyhow. But their allies have all but sainted the ole gipper.

Will someone explain this to me? Looks like the only thing Republicans conserve is the wealth of the wealthy… show me what I'm missing here.

(And for the record, I don't care who the president sleeps with. Doesn't effect me in the least. Federal deficit does effect me.)

[Mr_Cheeze]

Ron Paul has great experience writing newsletters. I'm guessing you subscribe.

Slider

You would love to believe that he actually wrote them. Pretty much serves your agenda to discredit any true conservative as bigoted. Read: Patrick Buchanon

Yea, don't worry. He'll end up along the same path as Buchanon. Refusing to kowtow to special interests pretty much spells doom for any candidate. Just ask Dennis Kucinich.

[noreaster]

Here's the thing though: if your name is on the publication, you are ultimately responsible for its contents. He should have been more responsible in who he allowed to publish under his name. And some pretty hateful things were released under his name. I don't believe he is bigotted in that way, but it happened on his watch. This undermines one's confidence in what else could go below his nose without him noticing.

I like Ron Paul a lot. But this is a big time blunder.

I'm guessing most liberals like Ron Paul a lot more than the rest of the field, because liberals don't mind people with opposing points of view. But they don't like phonies. It's clear that Paul is a straight forward person who tells it like he sees it, and tells you what he thinks, regardless as to whether it's popular position or not.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Except that this "scandal" is nothing new. It was first brought to attention in 1996 when he ran for Congress, an election he won.

[Enigma]

I just love it when all you whining Democrat Huggers try to slam Reagan's policies based on what your daddies read in rags like the Boston Glob. Real and unprecedented economic growth is the result of sound long range planning by a true visionary.
History remembers Reagan accurately, and the information is available if you youngsters care to read.


www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm)


Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation:
In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm#pgfId-1122284) To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14 (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm#pgfId-1122288)
Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15 (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm#pgfId-1122292)
These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16 (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm#pgfId-1122296)Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.
Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:
For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:
For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;
For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;
For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and
For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17 (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm#pgfId-1122308)CONCLUSION
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.
If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.
To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.
Peter Sperry is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[Slider]

You would love to believe that he actually wrote them. Pretty much serves your agenda to discredit any true conservative as bigoted. Read: Patrick Buchanon

Yea, don't worry. He'll end up along the same path as Buchanon. Refusing to kowtow to special interests pretty much spells doom for any candidate. Just ask Dennis Kucinich.

He is a racist, pure and simple, if that crap went out under his name, and it did.

Buchanan is too, in case you wondered where I stand on that one.

Slider

[Slider]

[QUOTE=Enigma;156513]I just love it when all you whining Democrat Huggers try to slam Reagan's policies based on what your daddies read in rags like the Boston Glob.

Pure fantasy and revisionist history.

Borrowing from Wikipedia here. Top tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% over seven years . No getting around that one with sleight-of-hand reasoning. "but payroll taxes increased during Reagan's terms as well as the effective tax rates on the lower two income quintiles."

Off the rich, and on the backs of the lowest tax brackets.

But that isn't the only route to handout big bucks to the rich. The S and L bailout is an even better example. Take cash directly from government coffers and hand it to your friends and their friends. $300billion.

To me, the irony here, unless you are really wealthy, is that he screwed you, too.

Slider

[Slappy]

He is a racist, pure and simple, if that crap went out under his name, and it did.

Buchanan is too, in case you wondered where I stand on that one.

Slider

Yeah, but I've heard you say the same about most anyone here that's disagreed with you too. Always keeping that brush at the ready....:rolleyes:

[Slider]

Untrue. I am pretty selective about that. You can dig up any number of Buchanan quotes to support this. As for Paul, that scumbag isn't worth the effort.

Slider

[Enigma]

Pure fantasy and revisionist history.

Borrowing from Wikipedia here. ....

Slider

Even you Slider could get your 'views' published in Wikipedia.

Tell you what, have your Dad read my last post to you, just in case there was something you didn't understand. Then ask him if he ever heard of the Laffer Curve. Better yet Google it. If you run across any big words, get a dictionary and look them up.

BTW those increased payroll taxes you whine about were increased by your Democratic buds in Congress.

[Enigma]

Untrue. I am pretty selective about that. You can dig up any number of Buchanan quotes to support this. As for Paul, that scumbag isn't worth the effort.

Slider

Yeah, All Republicans are "scum", or "scumbags" and the Democrats are the only thing saving this country, pretty much sums up your worldly view of things. That's as bigoted an ideal as it is short on reasoned thought.

[Slider]

Yeah, All Republicans are "scum", or "scumbags" and the Democrats are the only thing saving this country, pretty much sums up your worldly view of things. That's as bigoted an ideal as it is short on reasoned thought.

Racists are scumbags, Democratic or Republican. Which ones are we talking about?

Slider

[Slider]

Even you Slider could get your 'views' published in Wikipedia.

Tell you what, have your Dad read my last post to you, just in case there was something you didn't understand. Then ask him if he ever heard of the Laffer Curve. Better yet Google it. If you run across any big words, get a dictionary and look them up.

BTW those increased payroll taxes you whine about were increased by your Democratic buds in Congress.

I understood that you didn't write any of it. Maybe daddy can write your next post, too.

Slider

[FriedRys]

Racists are scumbags, Democratic or Republican. Which ones are we talking about?

Slider
The wost kind, the Disney kind.....

http://www.cracked.com/article_15833_9-most-racist-disney-characters.html

[Mr_Cheeze]

Untrue. I am pretty selective about that. You can dig up any number of Buchanan quotes to support this. As for Paul, that scumbag isn't worth the effort.

Slider

Then do it, smart guy. You're so righteous. How can it not be worth your effort? Find a full context of anything directly said or written by Paul or Buchanon. Not a blurb or partial quote that serves to simply forward your blatant bias. I've seen all of that stuff on the lefty sites. They... and you love to twist and spin. Your claim that it's not "worth your effort" is a complete copout because you have nothing outside of what you'll find from those with the same agenda.

[Slider]

Here's one from Buchanan's book. Like I said, Paul is scum not worth my time. Buchanan has a larger audience of people who are either racists themselves or don't quite get what he is about.

"America faces an existential crisis. If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built. No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic transformation and survived. Only whites have the appropriate “genetic endowments” to keep America from collapsing."

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Paul is not worth your time because you have nothing. Why even bother with such a lazy retort as calling him "scum". To you, all Republicans are scum. But far be it for you to ever admit to such blatant and transparent bias.

[catbbq]

Here's one from Buchanan's book. Like I said, Paul is scum not worth my time. Buchanan has a larger audience of people who are either racists themselves or don't quite get what he is about.

"America faces an existential crisis. If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built. No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic transformation and survived. Only whites have the appropriate “genetic endowments” to keep America from collapsing."

Slider

I am genetically well endowed, if not jeanitically.

[Slider]

Paul is not worth your time because you have nothing. Why even bother with such a lazy retort as calling him "scum". To you, all Republicans are scum. But far be it for you to ever admit to such blatant and transparent bias.

More biased than, say, his newsletters?

Slider

[Unbreakable]

I am genetically well endowed, if not jeanitically.

Really? Levis, Wranlers or a heretofore unknown Euro-brand?
:D

[Unbreakable]

More biased than, say, his newsletters?

Slider

Yep.

[Slider]

The guy is a racist, and campaigned using racist publications. If you want to defend him somehow, let's hear it. If not, go back to reading your comic books.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Yea, I'll defend him as I did before. The newsletter, while carrying his name, were not written by him. Fact is fact. It is simply convenient for you and any self-righteous defender of the races liberal to harp on something of such small consequence. What you truly despise, though you will never admit it, is the man's honesty. That's because you're used to liars running politics on both sides of the aisle. You're so used to it, in fact, that you believe it's the norm. Take Hillary. What makes her the bastion of integrity? Oh, that's right, her deep pockets and political connections. I see.

Look, I'm under no illusion that Paul stands a chance. I'm voting for him anyway, because I favor his libertarian message, and it's my right. And I'll vote for the next man or woman who comes along who is like him, black or white or whatever.

And I'll take comic books over the Communist Manifesto.

[Slider]

You're saying, with a straight face, that this guy doesn't read his own newsletters? Not only with a straight face, but a full head of self-righteous bluster dolloped on top?

Paul himself sttempted to defend the newsletters, saying they came out of "current events and statistical reports of the time." No "someone else did it" from the man himself.

So let's put that one to bed. Racist, capital R, and that alone makes him unfit for any office, never mind the presidency. It doesn't seem to hurt your estimation of him, though. Not real surprised.

Slider

[Enigma]

You're saying, with a straight face, that this guy doesn't read his own newsletters? Not only with a straight face, but a full head of self-righteous bluster dolloped on top?

Paul himself sttempted to defend the newsletters, saying they came out of "current events and statistical reports of the time." No "someone else did it" from the man himself.

So let's put that one to bed. Racist, capital R, and that alone makes him unfit for any office, never mind the presidency. It doesn't seem to hurt your estimation of him, though. Not real surprised.

Slider

For telling us all how to think - Thank you mister know-it-all:rolleyes:

[Slider]

For NOT telling us how you think, thank you.

Slider

[Enigma]

Unless I said "I'm a Slidercrat", which, pardon me but I don't see folks lining up to do, telling you how I think would only mean another post for you to spew your cement-headed diatribes at.

But, thanks for telling us all how to think anyway.

[Slider]

So you read a forum created for discussion, provide bubble-headed commentary, but don't really want to say what you think. WTF are you here for?

Sounds more like you lack either the stones or the brains to make a contribution.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

You're saying, with a straight face, that this guy doesn't read his own newsletters? Not only with a straight face, but a full head of self-righteous bluster dolloped on top?

Paul himself sttempted to defend the newsletters, saying they came out of "current events and statistical reports of the time." No "someone else did it" from the man himself.

So let's put that one to bed. Racist, capital R, and that alone makes him unfit for any office, never mind the presidency. It doesn't seem to hurt your estimation of him, though. Not real surprised.

Slider

Yea, ok. You're self righteous. No, you're self righteous. Nice rebuttal.

Libertarianism, pure and simple. True conservatism is why I support Paul. He's the only candidate who has been honest from the get go about limiting government and stopping the war, which he is the most strongly against, and always has been. That gives him more than the benefit of the doubt in my eyes. Hillary cannot even say that without adding just one more lie on top of the heap that she has already piled. Apparently she has you and a lot of others fooled.

[Slider]

Yeah, but he is racist in a country made up of all races. It doesn't work and he needs to crawl back into whatever hole he came out of.

Slider

[Slappy]

Yeah, but he is racist in a country made up of racists of all races.

Fixed that fer ya!

[Mr_Cheeze]

No, more like he is a racist according to someone who bandies about the term haphazardly; e.g. if one simply believes that our immigration policy should be anything but completely open. Some people are ignorant of the meaning of words.

[FriedRys]

No, more like he is a racist according to someone who bandies about the term haphazardly; e.g. if one simply believes that our immigration policy should be anything but completely open. Some people are ignorant of the meaning of words.And some people DO know the meaning of words but choose to use them as a lead blanket in an effort to marginalise those that disagree with their narrow views.

Thought Blazing Saddles was funny? You are a racist.

Laughed at "Dice" Clay in 1994? You are a mysoginistic bastard.

You get the idea, after a while the words stop having much meaning other than "Nu-uh, I'm right, you're wrong, so that makes you an -----ist"

[kernel crash]

No I agree with Mr Cheeze on this one. Whether its Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan, just the mention of taking care of our borders seems to invite the dreaded R word. It's thrown about like the end all to the conversation. Its an easy out when you want to stick your head up your ass. So according to you guys 99% of the entire world must be racist based on their immigration policy. You do realize we have one of the most liberal immigration policies on the planet.

[Slappy]

Every person on the planet with the exception of Slider is obviously a racist. Deal with it.

http://robertb.blog.is/img/tncache/400x400/96/robertb/img/c_users_robert_desktop_gay_black_jewish_klan2.jpg

[Slider]

It really seems you guys are not reading the posts that got us here. There are specific quotes from both Buchanan and Paul that are blatantly racist. I didn't make them up.

You should go back and reread, then drop the misdirection crap.

Slider

[Slappy]

C'mon - you know at this point we've all got too much history going over this stuff to stay strictly on track. :D

I think you're falling victim to the chicken little syndrome wrt to racism. If a person is going to generously level implications of racism on a regular basis, you can't blame others for taking their charges with a grain of salt after a while.

Personally, I'm kinda fascinated by the topic, but any sort of honest discussion seems impossible a lot of the time. Something is said, usually one of those generalizations that are unavoidable when on the subject, then the 'racist' trump card is thrown (maybe not in so many words, but nevertheless) and that kills it. How the hell can you get anywhere that way? I know for sure I bear no prejudice based on race. I'm pretty damn sure I don't harbor any racist ideals unless laughing my ass off at Blazing Saddles counts. Yet when I have the opinion that we need to tighten borders, it's implied I reached that opinion due to racism. I find that insulting. I've spent too much time with too many different people to buy into that ****.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled hootnanny...

[Mr_Cheeze]

It really seems you guys are not reading the posts that got us here. There are specific quotes from both Buchanan and Paul that are blatantly racist. I didn't make them up.

You should go back and reread, then drop the misdirection crap.

Slider

That's funny, but I cannot seem to find those Ron Paul quotes. What? OH YEA, THERE ARE NONE! Why? Because, as you stated quite clearly, "That scumbag isn't worth my time". Which, we all know, really means, "I can't find anything to make my point."

[Slider]

You quoted my post yourself.

"Paul himself sttempted to defend the newsletters, saying they came out of "current events and statistical reports of the time." No "someone else did it" from the man himself."

Short attention span?

Slider

[Slider]

C'mon - you know at this point we've all got too much history going over this stuff to stay strictly on track. :D

I think you're falling victim to the chicken little syndrome wrt to racism. If a person is going to generously level implications of racism on a regular basis, you can't blame others for taking their charges with a grain of salt after a while.

Buchanan is among the main proponents of tightened borders. Most of the discussions we've had here involve the racist "gentleman." It isn't a coincidence.

You can argue for tighter borders, but not via the route Buchanan takes.

Slider

[Enigma]

That's funny, but I cannot seem to find those Ron Paul quotes. What? OH YEA, THERE ARE NONE! Why? Because, as you stated quite clearly, "That scumbag isn't worth my time". Which, we all know, really means, "I can't find anything to make my point."

Mr. Cheeze hit the nail on the head. While most on this discussion forum air political gripes and opinions, Slider steps in to hurl whatever epithet he finds convenient at any post that comes down on the side of conservatism or the Republican Party (like the Democrats do no wrong). Then when pressed for data to back it up the canned response is 'It's not worth my time'

Now there's some code which really means: I got nothing but someone else's opinion which I can regurgitate along with some untoward adjectives to make you feel inferior enough not to continue pressing me for a constructive debate.

[Slider]

So you've read all my posts? I am flattered!

Here's the content of ALL of your posts to date. Tell me what you bring to this table.

Slider

1. Wanted to maximize my vote today in the NH primary election.
Couldn't quite decide which candidate had the best skills to lead our country for the next four years....

So I cast my ballot for the candidate that will be instrumental at ensuring victory for the Republican Nominee. I voted for Hillary Clinton.

2. For telling us all how to think - Thank you mister know-it-all

3. Yeah, All Republicans are "scum", or "scumbags" and the Democrats are the only thing saving this country, pretty much sums up your worldly view of things. That's as bigoted an ideal as it is short on reasoned thought.

4. Even you Slider could get your 'views' published in Wikipedia.

Tell you what, have your Dad read my last post to you, just in case there was something you didn't understand. Then ask him if he ever heard of the Laffer Curve. Better yet Google it. If you run across any big words, get a dictionary and look them up.

BTW those increased payroll taxes you whine about were increased by your Democratic buds in Congress.

5. I just love it when all you whining Democrat Huggers try to slam Reagan's policies based on what your daddies read in rags like the Boston Glob. Real and unprecedented economic growth is the result of sound long range planning by a true visionary.
History remembers Reagan accurately, and the information is available if you youngsters care to read.

(snip of the following Reagonomics fantasy crap, written by someone else)

6. Bubbles the Showgirl!

[Mr_Cheeze]

You quoted my post yourself.

"Paul himself sttempted to defend the newsletters, saying they came out of "current events and statistical reports of the time." No "someone else did it" from the man himself."

Short attention span?

Slider

Wha?!? Where did I quote you? Show me.

This only proves that you have nothing substantial on anything Paul may or may not have written that you consider to be racist. This "quote" of yours is nothing more than your idea of what constitutes a lame explanation. And maybe it is. One could almost argue that not even he knows all of what was in those newsletters. You're just assuming that his explanation is lame, probably because of an obvious preconceived notion which you refuse to backup.

For the record, I've seen the controversial quotes from the newsletters. They don't even come close to anything Buchanon said in his book. That said, he probably should have explained himself better. It's what likely killed his campaign.

[Slider]

Page 6 in this thread, 8th post down.

Guy campaigns with racist crap, defends it as a product of the times, which were 1996 to give some context, and your conclusion is that he's not racist.

Great reasoning skills.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Funny, I was going to suggest the same about your reasoning skills, which is to say, are entirely devoid of actual logic, especially considering you have yet to provide any substantial proof of anything outside of his supposedly lame defense. Your "reasoning" is nothing more than preconceived notions based on what you've read in your lefty blogs and the liberal use of the "racist" moniker to anyone who doesn't adhere to political correctness. At worst, Ron Paul is not PC. To go further than that only shows your own ignorance as to the meaning of words.