I thought I was done with this thread but I just have a few more thoughts 

Actually, I have grown sick of these "current" republicans.  They seem mostly anymore to be spineless lemmings that are more about being seen as cooperative and less trouble.  Of the current options to me, the best for ME personally seems to be the values of the Tea Party - clearly conservative and cleanly positioned in the "marketplace" of voters but no national organization.  This probably means little chances in any election, especially with both Democrats and Republican fearing/hating them (may be the part I like best.....

He did inherit an economic mess - made by Bill Clinton in the 90's (AND ignored by Bush) relative to housing.  However, until the liberal media turns on Muslim U.S. President Barach Hussein, NOTHING is going to happen to him.  That means he finishes his regime (unless he goes for a third term - wow: Belize here I come!)

The better question for many of us here is, "Who will be the best, most electable conservative candidate?"

Pat

Baron, you cannot tell how Obama spent $8 trillion?

Easy peasy he put all the crap the GOP left OFF the books ON the books.

This is what GOP Senator Orin Hatch said about the Bush years. "It was common not to pay for things under Bush." Where was the Baron when all that was going on?

BUSH is the STANDARD that you judge Obama on, thats how it works.

Americas middle class lost $20 trillion in wealth due to the GOP Great Recession, the Democrat plan is to raise the minimum wage. We still have no GOP plan for anything.

Don't worry be happy and get Ready for Hillary.

I attended 3 Tea Parties Buckeye, it was a GOP operation.

In 2014 the Establishment crushed the Tea Party.

The Tea Party made a fatal error siding with the GOP, they should have brought in the Blue Dog Conservative Democrats, instead they slaughtered them.

Now the Tea Party has no moves, they are cooked.

Just think, a TP with a nice passel of Democrats would be running Congress right now. But they were used to put Boehner and McConnell, the same exact guys that let Bush run wild back in power.

What did you expect was going to happen?

Hillary would be older than Ronny if she runs.  I don't think she will.  It will be a bait and switch.  She is just to poor at campaigning to make it past the finish line.  Its all machine politics on the D side of the balance, and what the machine wants, the machine gets.

I'd love to see what would happen if Webb runs against Hillary and have the Party stand down and let the people choose.  It won't happen!

As far as the party as a whole.......

Read the communist manifesto and tell me which party platform it resembles.

Greg

Quote from: 10mmfan on February 17 2015 12:06:20 PM MST
Honestly this is one thing I agree with Australia on, if you illegally enter the country you are ineligible to become a citizen. If you enter legally you are uneligible for welfare but your children are.

Sorry, I have no pity for the children of illegals. Their parents brought them in illegally or had them while here illegally. They should not take food/ medical benefits from the mouths of children of legally citizens. There are only so much welfare dollars allocated. We give huge chunks to illegals, there's less for our own people., and everybody suffers. Unless you like higher taxes to pay more welfare recipients.

The age comparisons between Hillary Clinton and Ronald Reagan seem as natural as they are nonsensical.

Yes, were Clinton to win in 2016, she would take office at age 69—just as Reagan did in 1981. And yes, the comparison is often made when Clinton's critics and allies debate whether she has the health to serve out two presidential terms.

But it's a wildly misleading comparison, as the number that matters when assessing Clinton's health is not her age, but her life expectancy. And there is where the Clinton-Reagan comparison is revealed as a stretch.

A combination of federal data and a more nuanced approach to calculating Clinton's life expectancy—one that includes her gender, era, and other factors—projects the would-be president living to age 86. That means Clinton would live a full 17 years after taking office, more than enough time to serve out two terms.

Under the same criteria used to calculate Clinton's life expectancy, Reagan upon inauguration was projected to live to 81—12 projected years after taking the oath to Clinton's 17.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/why-you-can-t-compare-hillary-clinton-s-age-to-ronald-reagan-s-20140423

She wins comfortably, the Ds take the Senate and make inroads to the House.

Webb wins by LARGER margins and also takes the House.

Quote from: gandog56 on February 22 2015 06:36:26 AM MST

Sorry, I have no pity for the children of illegals. Their parents brought them in illegally or had them while here illegally. They should not take food/ medical benefits from the mouths of children of legally citizens. There are only so much welfare dollars allocated. We give huge chunks to illegals, there's less for our own people., and everybody suffers. Unless you like higher taxes to pay more welfare recipients.

Originally only children of U.S. citizens could become citizens. If you were in the U.S. for ANY reason, and you had a child here, he/she wouldn't be a US citizen. Native Americans (Indians) were not considered citizens even though they were born here, and neither were their children. I do not know whether black slaves (or any color slaves) were considered citizens.



.

Quote from: Wolfie on February 22 2015 11:32:31 AM MST

She wins comfortably, the Ds take the Senate and make inroads to the House.

Webb wins by LARGER margins and also takes the House.

Its been awhile since I have seen someone so pro-dem, anti republican. 

I can't help to think your part of the machine.  Labor Union, Teacher's Union, Gov Employee, ....  What part of the bought and paid for do you belong?

When you stop thinking for yourself and holding the establishment to account, the freedom is removed and your dependance is complete.

Greg

I would consider myself more in the anti-Republican than pro-Democrat camp.

Trying to insult me by saying I do not think for myself is cute.

I deal with facts, when Democrats say something, whether you like it or not they deliver. When Republicans make promises they fail to deliver. But as a FOX News viewer, Republican failure is never covered.

Just in the last 10 years, Republicans have failed at foreign policy, economics and family values.

Why do you support them when all they do is fail you?

Oh wait, FOX tells you how to vote, never mind.

Oh boy Hillary in the White House. I get to pay more towards funding the Welfare State, I would get another Socialist in power, I get another gun grabber in there (hey remember when Billy boy tried to slip in a rule that if you were on welfare you could have your home searched anytime they wanted). Yeah great let's just put another one of Saul Alinsky's devotees in power. I really loved her handling of Benghazi just as I'm sure the families of those who were there did (especially if they were a member of the group that attacked us). I'd rather elect a Chia Pet than Hillary. The Democrats were shown the door in the mid-terms. They are running away from supporting Obama. The problem they all have is they don't know what they want to be or what they want to believe or what they want to take credit for. The democratic redistribution of wealth policies are tired and sorely out of date. Just great...let me start wearing brown and goose stepping everywhere now.

I'm tired of Obama in particular using the Constitution to wipe his rear end. I'm glad a Federal judge stood up and slapped him for exceeding his authority.

Socialists like Bush P33v3?

Hillary is going to crush her opponent. When less than 40% vote like in 2010 and 2014 Republicans win. When over 60% vote in presidentials like 2008 and 2012 Democrats win.

You have to hope people do not come out to vote to win, I will bet Hillary will get over 60% to vote.

As for Benghazi what would you have done? Risk American lives for those already KIA?

All, just for the record, most economists "credited" the 2008/2009 crash to the realty/housing mortgage market imploding.  Fact is, back in the mid 90's, Clinton and the feds pushed all lenders into making, "more homes available to more people" by forcing most banks to lower their qualifying standards for mortgage loans.  Bush did NO ONE favors (economically) while he was in either.  He had nearly eight years to re-direct the train headed for Bottomsville and did nothing.

How idyllic: everyone has their own home and lives happily ever after..........until the people who could pay loans before (and were denied because of that) couldn't pay their loans then either.  So much default happened it became a black hole and sucked most of the financial market into the abyss with it.

Many medium and smaller lenders folded and the market took a bath. 

THAT is what caused the last crash.

Wolfie:

I have come to detest most Republicans today too mainly because they are not taking a strong and clear stand for fundamental conservative values.  Their spineless compromising is sickening.  For me, the real problem is that I see few alternatives to uncontrolled liberalism since the only opposing party is more concerned with covering their ass and being seen as "cooperative."

I think what most are concerned about is NOW, socialism if not some form of communism seems like the next stop for the train at the rate we are going......

Pat

Actually, the REAL problem (in my humble opinion) is NOW the "fix" will be so bad that if done, it for sure will be political suicide.

Just look at Greece - they are almost totally out of control and even minor attempts to slow the hemorrhaging has been met with riots for people not wanting to give up their subsidies (which they haven't been able to afford since WWII).

Don't know where this leaves us? 

Oh wait, yes I do: Earth, Hitler, 1930.  Consolidate power because only absolute power will be strong enough to really "fix" such a broad and deep problem.

So, do any conservative politicians have the guts to do the right thing? 

Pat

Democrats passed Housing Laws to rebuild old areas like the South Bronx. The GOP took it further to build new developments.

This is what Bush did for homeownership. Add this with no SEC enforcement with derivative trading and you have disaster. Lets not even talk about how builders were a major Bush campaign contributors.

Expanding Home Ownership

"This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."

- President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003

The Accomplishments

Increasing Homeownership

The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.

President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.

The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.
The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.

The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender. These loans are expected to provide 42,800 homeownership opportunities to rural families across America.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/achievement/chap7.html

As for Greece, they were also brought down by their version of Republicans.

Quote from: Wolfie on February 22 2015 12:06:35 PM MST
I would consider myself more in the anti-Republican than pro-Democrat camp.

Trying to insult me by saying I do not think for myself is cute.

I deal with facts, when Democrats say something, whether you like it or not they deliver. When Republicans make promises they fail to deliver. But as a FOX News viewer, Republican failure is never covered.

Just in the last 10 years, Republicans have failed at foreign policy, economics and family values.

Why do you support them when all they do is fail you?

Oh wait, FOX tells you how to vote, never mind.

I watch some FOX.  I watch some CNN.  I cannot stomach MSNBC. 

I fall into the anti-politician form.  The offices were designed to be filled by everyday men as a service to the country.  They have become a life long profession designed to fill pockets, both for the office holder and their corrupt contributors.  An amendment to the Constitution limiting the time to 12 years TOTAL in office in DC would be a big step forward IMHO.

What is really cute is your talking points.  If you actually believe them, I renew the thinking for yourself thing.

Did Saul Alinsky tell you not to answer the following?

What party platform resembles the Communist Manifesto?

And

Labor Union, Teacher's Union, Gov Employee, ....  What part of the bought and paid for do you belong?

Greg