I think the people want a new (totally new) face in '16

R

republicanchick

New member
Yeh, I think people are a little tired of the Clintons and maybe even the Bushes

God knows.

But anyone who knows about what is going on with the scandals (while Ds are in office), well, those people not in the know.. They are liable to vote any which way.

they vote for someone b/c of his skin color

or gender

guess that's why everything's a mess.

But anyway, I think even Ds would vote for Cruz if it came down to Cruz v Clinton.. b/c, again... I believe people want something new.

just my thoughts
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
As for me I already have a king,but as for this new king(makes no difference if he's Peewee Herman),if the people in the U.S. are Godly,God will soften his/her heart,,,but if they are wicked and you elect Peewee Herman God will harden his heart and he will be an punishment,,,
 
Buzzword

Buzzword

New member
Mocking You said:
Have you decided which wall you're taking out in order to put in the Cruz shrine?
Click to expand...

Nice.

I think the country wouldn't know what to do with a TRULY "totally new" candidate.

A person coming out of nowhere with no previous public exposure?
They'd have this beautiful dichotomy of terrible problem/awesome advantage.

The problem would stem from nobody knowing who they were, so their marketing campaign would be fighting uphill.

The advantage would stem from them having no public mistakes for opponents to feed from.
 
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
I think the people want a new (totally new) face in '16 -

The White House is the last place you want on-the-job training for a "new (totally new) face" who will require years to acquire the negotiating skills necessary to be an effective president.

LBJ was the ultimate "insider," who knew how Washington worked and how to get legislation passed.

Part of the problem with administrations like those of Obama, GWB, Clinton, Reagan and Carter was that both they and their staffs lacked any real knowledge as to how to get their agenda passed - especially when the other party controlled one or both of the Houses of Congress.
 
Last edited:
Buzzword

Buzzword

New member
jgarden said:
I think the people want a new (totally new) face in '16 -

The White House is last place you want on the job training for a "new (totally new) face" who will require years to acquire the negotiating skills necessary to be an effective president.

LBJ was the ultimate "insider," who knew how Washington worked and how to get legislation passed.

Part of the problem with administrations like those of Obama, GWB, Clinton, Reagan and Carter was that both they and their staffs lacked any real knowledge as to how to get their agenda passed - especially when the other party controlled one or both of the Houses of Congress.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it's a fair comparison between LBJ and any president of the last thirty years, mainly because the Republican party has more and more to the extremities of the "conservative" end of the spectrum with each passing election cycle.

And with that extremity has come a more and more overbearing extremity of stonewalling any effort in Congress to do ANYTHING but serve the corporate masters who have over the past thirty years gradually flooded the capitol with lobbyists.
 
R

republicanchick

New member
whitestone said:
As for me I already have a king,but as for this new king(makes no difference if he's Peewee Herman),if the people in the U.S. are Godly,God will soften his/her heart,,,but if they are wicked and you elect Peewee Herman God will harden his heart and he will be an punishment,,,
Click to expand...

I tend to think this is so

there is much evil in the US.. the greatest being the evil of murdering helpless children




++
 
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
Buzzword said:
I seriously doubt it's a fair comparison between LBJ and any president of the last thirty years, mainly because the Republican party has more and more to the extremities of the "conservative" end of the spectrum with each passing election cycle.

And with that extremity has come a more and more overbearing extremity of stonewalling any effort in Congress to do ANYTHING but serve the corporate masters who have over the past thirty years gradually flooded the capitol with lobbyists.
Click to expand...
This may be true but the transition of mainly state governors (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GWB) and their staffs to the White House is a difficult one and they lack the personal contacts and knowledge of how Congress actually works.

LBJ was the last president who had a real working knowledge of the personalities and the daily behind-the-scenes operations of getting legislation passed.

As for Cruz, anybody born outside of Canada and running for president should have had their citizenship researched and cleared up years ago.

Being informed by the Dallas Tribune that he still held Canadian citizenship shows Cruz's shocking lack of judgment!
 
R

republicanchick

New member
jgarden said:
Being informed by the Dallas Tribune that he still held Canadian citizenship shows Cruz's shocking lack of judgment!
Click to expand...

geez.. That problem was resolved a long time ago when Cruz announced his run..

you are behind the times..

not surprisingly

which reminds me of how libs.. were against Blacks having rights.. until the Rs pushed for such. Now they can't stop talking about race.. can't stop acting like THEY invented equality for Blacks when really it was the R party that freed them and voted for Civil Rights bills..

creepy...

but anyhow


+++
 
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
republicanchick said:
geez.. That problem was resolved a long time ago when Cruz announced his run..

you are behind the times..

not surprisingly

which reminds me of how libs.. were against Blacks having rights.. until the Rs pushed for such. Now they can't stop talking about race.. can't stop acting like THEY invented equality for Blacks when really it was the R party that freed them and voted for Civil Rights bills..

creepy...

but anyhow


+++
Click to expand...
"Republicanchick" contends that its the Republicans who are the upholders of Civil Rights and that Democrats have been giving then a bad name.

Lets put that to the test and use the establishment of a "Martin Luther King Jr. Day" as the focus of our attention.

1. Senators Jesse Helms and John Porter East (both North Carolina Republicans) led opposition against the bill to establish a Martin Luther King Jr. Day and criticized King's opposition to the Vietnam War, accusing him of espousing "action-oriented Marxism" (similar to those comments now being directed toward Obama).

2. President Ronald Reagan opposed the holiday, using "cost concerns" as his excuse. He never denied his fellow Republicans' allegations that MLK was a "communist" and only signed the measure after it passed 338 to 90 in the House of Representatives - a vote that would override any presidential veto.

3. Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat, introduced a MLK holiday in Arizona by executive order, but his Republican successor Evan Mecham overturned it.

4. When 51% of Arizona voters rejected the King holiday, the NFL moved the Super Bowl, and the $500 million in revenues that it would have brought to that state, to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California. When the MLK referendum was held again in 1992 , the Arizona voters had learned their lesson and approved it.

5. South Carolina was the last state to recognize the day as a paid holiday for all state employees.

6. Utah referred to it as "Human Rights Day" until 2000 when the Utah State Legislature change it to Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

7. Alabama - Martin Luther King Jr. Day is known as "Robert E. Lee/Martin Luther King Birthday"

8. Arizona - Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is known as "Martin Luther King Jr./Civil Rights Day"

9. Arkansas - Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is known as "Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert E. Lee’s Birthdays"

10. Idaho - Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is known as "Martin Luther King Jr.- Idaho Human Rights Day"

11. Mississippi - Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is known as "Martin Luther King's and Robert E. Lee's Birthdays"

12. Virginia - Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was known as Lee–Jackson–King Day, combining King's birthday with the established Lee–Jackson Day. In 2000, Lee–Jackson Day was moved to the Friday before, and established Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a holiday in its own right.

Republicans at both the state and the federal level have repeatedly resisted the establishment of a "Martin Luther King Jr. Day" or have combined it with Robert E. Lee's birthday.

Now they have the audacity to portray themselves as the guardians of civil rights and question why "blacks" aren't lining up to vote for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day
 
Last edited:
R

republicanchick

New member
jgarden said:
"Republicanchick" contends that its the Republicans who are the upholders of Civil Rights and that Democrats have been giving then a bad name.

Lets put that to the test and use the establishment of a "Martin Luther King Jr. Day" as the focus of our attention.

1. Senators Jesse Helms and John Porter East (both North Carolina Republicans) led opposition against the bill to establish a Martin Luther King Jr. Day and criticized King's opposition to the Vietnam War, accusing him of espousing "action-oriented Marxism" (similar to those comments now being directed toward Obama).

2._Luther_King,_Jr._Day[/url]
Click to expand...

how stupid. Just b/c these senators don't think MLK Jr was some kind of saint, they are racist.. MLKK Jr was supposed to have been w/ prostitutes, etc... no saint..

not even going to bother reading the rest of your verly-likely totally DUMB post

I know how dishonest u r..

I will stick to answering the honest or more-or-less honest posters




____
 
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
republicanchick said:
how stupid. Just b/c these senators don't think MLK Jr was some kind of saint, they are racist.. MLKK Jr was supposed to have been w/ prostitutes, etc... no saint..

not even going to bother reading the rest of your verly-likely totally DUMB post

I know how dishonest u r..

I will stick to answering the honest or more-or-less honest posters

____
Click to expand...
You can always depend on "republicanchick" to debate a topic based in the facts - NOT!
 
Saved.One.by.Grace

Saved.One.by.Grace

New member
Buzzword said:
Nice.

I think the country wouldn't know what to do with a TRULY "totally new" candidate.

A person coming out of nowhere with no previous public exposure?
They'd have this beautiful dichotomy of terrible problem/awesome advantage.

The problem would stem from nobody knowing who they were, so their marketing campaign would be fighting uphill.

The advantage would stem from them having no public mistakes for opponents to feed from.
Click to expand...
I thought we did that with Jimmy Carter.
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
republicanchick said:
Yeh, I think people are a little tired of the Clintons and maybe even the Bushes

God knows.

But anyone who knows about what is going on with the scandals (while Ds are in office), well, those people not in the know.. They are liable to vote any which way.

they vote for someone b/c of his skin color

or gender

guess that's why everything's a mess.

But anyway, I think even Ds would vote for Cruz if it came down to Cruz v Clinton.. b/c, again... I believe people want something new.

just my thoughts
Click to expand...


View attachment 19605
 
R

resodko

BANNED
Banned
jgarden said:
LBJ was the last president who had a real working knowledge of the personalities and the daily behind-the-scenes operations of getting legislation passed.
Click to expand...


you don't think that ford might have learned a thing or two being the house minority leader for eight years? :freak:


or nixon, for that matter, serving in the house and senate for six years and veep for eight?
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I think the people want a new (totally new) face in '16

maybe they just want a new thread about the same old stuff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top