View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 24th, 2014, 10:26 am



Reply to topic  [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next
 Thoughts on Santorum 
Author Message
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3030
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
to your point Pablo, what truly VIABLE option do we have?

Ron Paul, although he has some excellent ideas, his isolationist attitude is DANGEROUS for this country.

Now I am not suggesting that we be involved in ANY other nation except Israel. We should drill here and now, until we come up with a better way of doing things. I'm not kicking the can down the road, I am saying use what you have, WHILE UNDERTAKING proactive research and development on new means for daily life.

Isolate ourselves from the Arabs, close the borders, and protect what we have, I don't have a problem with that.... Where I have a problem is when we trade national sovereignty for the sake of the UN. I REALLY REALLY want the UN to be kicked out of New York. It is a corrupt, and pointless administration, that has no teeth unless it want's to use them. They are more content to let us do the dirty work, and I say, well I can't use that word.

Santorum is a social conservative and if you mixed his potential presidency with ron paul that could be a really strong ticket, and decent presidency.

but as i said what choice do we really have?

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


February 17th, 2012, 11:31 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11848
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Nice Right/Republican talking points, please see below for more accurate information:
Quote:
Obama has CONSISTENTLY circumvented the American Constitution, in order to appoint his CZARS, now we have the discussion about religious freedoms, (see appropriate thread), and he's governed no different from GWB?
Czars have been around for a long time, not just under Obama.
Quote:
Obama has spent MORE, TRILLIONS MORE, that Bush ever did. The Bush money of 700 Billion has been PAID back.

Image

Quote:
Obama has socialized the medicine


_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


February 17th, 2012, 12:03 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11848
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Now I am not suggesting that we be involved in ANY other nation except Israel.

I've asked this before and don't recall getting an answer, but WHY doe we need to be so involved with Israel? It could be argued that they're responsible for much of the unrest in the Middle East especially considering they're latest rhetoric of a preemptive strike on Iran. Do they not realize that IF they were to do that, there's a good chance they'll start World War 3. Do we really want that? Are they and they're supporters in that much of a hurry to meet they're makers? Considering this, are they really that much different than the "Islamic terrorists" that want to kill for they're beliefs? Is it not the same? Why does it seem that its ok as long as Israel is the one to do it? I just don't get it. If any other Country on this Earth were to act the same way, the US Govt would be condemning them on a regular basis. So, again I ask WHY is Israel so damned special?

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


February 17th, 2012, 12:09 pm
Profile
Online
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9267
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
WarEr4Christ wrote:
but as i said what choice do we really have?


You have a choice NOT to vote for either party. You have a choice to endure short term pain to cure long term ills. You have a choice to start exploring other options even if it is just at a local level first. You have tons of choices, perhaps your question really is:

What EASY choice do I have?

Your EASY choice is Coke or Pepsi. You don't want to drive a few more miles to get a juice or energy or even a beer. You don't want to try some tea because it isn't a familiar as Coke. And at first glance coffee looks downright nasty.

Hell, even after trying all those other drinks you might find out that you still prefer Coke. But you, and the millions and millions who think like you, are limiting everyone to Coke and Pepsi.

At this point, I don't care if you vote the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party or Green Party or American First Party or American Party or American Independent Party or Nazis, Reform, Communist, Socialist, Justice, Independent, Whig, Prohibition, etc.

I can, however, guarantee you that if you keep drinking only Coke or Pepsi your daughter will only be able to drink Coke or Pepsi as well and the issues she faces will be the same, except on a much larger scale (image what our debt will look like when she is your age at this pace and what about Social Security, etc.). If you are OK with mortgaging her future and heading down this same path keep voting for the same two parties you always do. Then again, what choice do you have?

BTW - nice graphic Wags, I guess Red = Coke and Blue = Pepsi. Look at the trends, 12 years of Coke, 8 years of Pepsi, 8 years of Coke, 4 years of Pepsi (and 4 more coming to make it 8). It is going to take a different color to change that graph, but we are so stuck on red and blue cause those are the easy choices. And if you think Red or Blue love America you are blind. Look what Coke and Pepsi has done to the American waistline and look what they have done to America's debt waistline. America has become a society of easy choices, Red or Blue, Coke or Pepsi, Republican or Democrat.

Again, what choice do you have? Easy or hard, and I can tell you exactly what is going to happen if you keep taking the easy choice.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


February 17th, 2012, 12:22 pm
Profile WWW
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3030
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Wags, Csars have definitely been around but not used with in such a manner, especially when Congress generally gives the okay or whatever it is.

I appreciate your "fact" checking, but sometimes the reality of facts doesn't mach up with the reality of life. Proof positive is how devisive Obama has truly been. He has used his power, and the power of his cohorts to ram rod things through Congress that was not supported by the MAJORITY of Americans.

You added a nice little graph to illustrate your point, but I'm curious, our National Debt has Skylined to 14 something trillion or more. Bush had 4 years to accumulate x amount of debt, Obama has done it in just about 3.

Lenin made it very clear, the quickest way to destroy a country is to destroy its currency. Soros claims to have done it to what 4 countries? Soros is Obamas good buddy to, if I remember right!

One of the most interesting things that caught my attention, but by NO MEANS is a deciding factor is Rick Santorum's Iowa victory speech.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... video.html

In a world that is quickly going into the toilet, a man who will stand upon principle, integrity, and have the stones to stand FOR the PEOPLE, in spite of the party, is quickly getting my approval. But I can also guarantee you this, if Santorum wins, he will have more hate and disdain then Bush ever did. So of all of the candidates, this is the one who's caught my attention. The cult member has proven to be untrustworthy and unpatriotic by hiding his $ over seas. Gingrich is a mad martz type scientist with a SHORT fuse. I'm not sure what I think of Ron Paul either....

I'd like to know more if anyone has info.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


February 17th, 2012, 1:12 pm
Profile
Online
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9267
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
WarEr4Christ wrote:
You added a nice little graph to illustrate your point, but I'm curious, our National Debt has Skylined to 14 something trillion or more. Bush had 4 years to accumulate x amount of debt, Obama has done it in just about 3.


No response to my post? Again, this is exactly what I am talking about. You know, the other side compared Bush's dramatic run up in debt to the Clinton administration.

You spin me right round baby right round, this is like a record player witht the same two tracks playing over and over again. ugh!

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


February 17th, 2012, 1:38 pm
Profile WWW
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11848
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Wags, Csars have definitely been around but not used with in such a manner, especially when Congress generally gives the okay or whatever it is.
I agree that recently the number of Czars has increased dramatically, though it started with GWB.

WarEr4Christ wrote:
I appreciate your "fact" checking, but sometimes the reality of facts doesn't mach up with the reality of life.
Facts are well, facts whereas reality is usually perception.

WarEr4Christ wrote:
You added a nice little graph to illustrate your point, but I'm curious, our National Debt has Skylined to 14 something trillion or more. Bush had 4 years to accumulate x amount of debt, Obama has done it in just about 3.
Yep, both are responsible - both passed expansive tax cuts without paying for them. Both oversaw military conflicts / wars that haven't been paid for either. All in all, both parties, as well as you and I, are ALL responsible for the current state of our Country and IMO its high time that gets discussed....sadly though I see just more of the same "He said, she said" & "It's their fault! No, it's their fault" finger-pointing.

WarEr4Christ wrote:
One of the most interesting things that caught my attention, but by NO MEANS is a deciding factor is Rick Santorum's Iowa victory speech.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... video.html
With all due respect to Mr. Santorum, he's a politician and politicians are known for "saying the right thing" Pardon me if I don't jump for joy when ANY of them makes a nice speech. Remember, actions speak louder than words.

WarEr4Christ wrote:
In a world that is quickly going into the toilet, a man who will stand upon principle, integrity, and have the stones to stand FOR the PEOPLE, in spite of the party, is quickly getting my approval. But I can also guarantee you this, if Santorum wins, he will have more hate and disdain then Bush ever did. So of all of the candidates, this is the one who's caught my attention. The cult member has proven to be untrustworthy and unpatriotic by hiding his $ over seas. Gingrich is a mad martz type scientist with a SHORT fuse. I'm not sure what I think of Ron Paul either....

I'd like to know more if anyone has info.
Did you read the article I posted on Page 3 of this thread? If so, you should note that he is not a conservative, at least not a fiscal conservative. For example:
Quote:
In that regard, Santorum has a pretty impressive record. By voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, he helped give President Obama the power to micromanage the nation's schools from Washington; and by supporting a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare, he helped saddle the taxpayers with a $16 trillion unfunded liability.

Santorum voted for the 2005 "bridge to nowhere" highway bill, has backed an expanded national service program, and his compassionate conservatism has the Bono seal of approval: "On our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable." Rick Santorum: He's from the government, and he's here to help.

Santorum's 2012 campaign platform even includes a pledge to "re-direct funds within HHS, so it can create public/private partnerships... for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood."
Romney, Santorum, Obama, Gingrich, doesn't matter, they're all the same. As Pablo asked, are you willing to make the tough decision and choose something other than "Coke or Pepsi" or are you going to contribute to maintaining the status quo?

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


February 17th, 2012, 2:23 pm
Profile
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
The problem is, this isn't a soft-drink, and it's not an individual choice. This isn't a decision where you can choose what's right for YOU and you get it. This is a collective decision and if everyone else doesn't "choose" tea you're stuck with Coke, even if you prefer Pepsi, and you could have maybe had Pepsi had you choose Pepsi instead of "tea" in the first place.

Getting people to collectively vote for an independent is the problem, and to do that they would actually have to use their brains. Unfortunately people have been brain washed to believe in the lies that they see most, which, unfortunately is the candidate that has the most to spend. Remember, if you tell a lie enough times people start to believe it, and that's exactly what happens in politics.

Wags, I think it's disingenuous to say that the Czars increase started with Bush. He appointed temporary people as Czars to disperse "bailout money" and to rapidly handle the housing crisis while Congress was sitting on their thumbs arguing about whether or not there was a crisis, and who caused it. The majority of Bush's appointees were temporary and he did it as a SERVICE to Barak Obama to allow THE NEW PRESIDENT to APPOINT PERMANENTLY the people that he wanted running the country. Bush literally didn't spend hardly ANY of the something like $870 billion dollar bailout because he knew he was going to be gone. He could have handed that money to one of his cronies, much the way the Democrats are doing now, but instead he choose to do only what was necessary and turn the decision making power over to the next POTUS. You think Obama would do the same? HELL NO HE WOULDN'T! On top of that his "Czars" have a more permanent nature about them. They've held their positions for nearly his ENTIRE TERM IN OFFICE.

I also think it is disingenuous to say that Bush increased Govt. spending XX%. While that may be true, it's BULLSH!T to compare Bush's temporary spending to Barak's PERMANENT spending that is only going to INCREASE! Barak has managed to put into place social programs that have outspent Bush while scaling down the war effort. He has managed to put enough debt on the books to OUT PACE BUSH who was FIGHTING A FULL SCALE WAR. That's just ridiculous. Moreover, Obama's entitlements are bankrupting this country and they are only going to add to the deficit for years to come. The TEMPORARY rise in spending that Bush had is all but gone. The troops are out of Iraq and we're not spending $900 million a day on a war any longer, yet Obama is STILL spending MORE than Bush ever could. That's just flat out ridiculous.


February 17th, 2012, 5:20 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3030
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
My apologies to all, being male I can generally focus on one thing at a time, so I'm not really trying to ignore anyones responses, or questions.

Let me see if I can try to respond....

Maybe this is a perspective thing as Wags suggested, because my BIGGEST issue with Clinton was gutting the military in order to pad his social issues here, and his FLAGRANT disregard for the Status of the POTUS. What I mean is that the White House became a whore house, complete with the parties to boot. I'm not talking State Dinners, I mean the parties where Striesand and his brother are flopping all over the place. Forgive the expression but it reminded me of bringing in your stoner buddies for a party and wondering why their trashing the joint. Clinton did some good things for the economy, but I truly wonder how much of that was beneficial from Reagan/Bush administration before. Moreso Reagan...

Clinton was also strongly suspected in the deaths of Secretary Ron Brown I believe it was, who was killed in a "plane crash" in Kosovo. However, reports I've read said that Mr. Brown had a bullet wound to the skull.

Let's not even go into Whitewater, and the number of bodies that came from that.

W gets into office, and his first 9 months I don't remember a whole bunch, but I remember from 9/11 forward. There was a lot of question concerning Iraq, and rightfully so, and Afghanistan should have been the only conflict we went into full bore. But hindsight is always 20/20.

To answer Pablo's question and yours:

I am not going to vote Party, I didn't last time around, just so you know. I voted for MaoBama in the Indiana Primary, because I didn't want Hillary to get it, she was adamant about selling sovereignty to the UN.
As I tried to say earlier, what matters to me is a man's character, and integrity. That is why I like "W" so much. He not only has character and integrity, but he stood by his decision inspite of the political cost and personal attacks. To his credit, he has STILL not responded to anything Obama and his lackies have stated, despite having the full right to call him out.

I don't know enough about Ron Paul to make a judgment call yet. Oh and for the record I voted for that little guy that ran independent in 1996. Those votes probably gave Clinton the job, because they pulled away from HW's numbers. But that was 16 years ago or so.

Libertarians concern me, because Freedom comes with a cost, and absolute Freedom is not a viable option. I may be showing my ignorance here, but I'm willing to be enlightened.

Again, and for the record, integrity, leadership, honesty, and character are what get my vote not a party!

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


February 17th, 2012, 5:32 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3030
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Wags, I think it's disingenuous to say that the Czars increase started with Bush. He appointed temporary people as Czars to disperse "bailout money" and to rapidly handle the housing crisis while Congress was sitting on their thumbs arguing about whether or not there was a crisis, and who caused it.

Funny thing is, who is it that not only SAT on the Committee in CHARGE of the housing situation, but also worked out the deals? Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd I believe were the TWO LIBERALs who sat and or chaired the committee that oversaw this whole scam that bilked people out of their money. If they didn't see what's going on, then WHY? If they did see what was going on, then why didn't they do anything? These guys are almost directly responsible for encouraging these criminal business practices, and making large amounts of money to boot. Why is it they have not been called out and exposed for their misdeeds?

Goes back to character and integrity.

It kind of goes back to the statement, "If you got to tell everyone your a lady, you probably aint." Just substitue the words Character and Integrity for lady and you get the picture. Frank and Dodd are NOTED crooked dealing Congressmen.

In fact, while we're at it, I'd love for someone to bring back Nancy Pelosi's most ethical congress statement and slap her with it.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


February 17th, 2012, 5:39 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Wow, so much to discuss here, but I'll only touch on a few of them.

Pablo wrote:
Are you a fan of Coke or Pepsi?

I choose TEA. :D

As for the debt, the graph Wags posted is correct. The scary part is that Obama will add more debt by the end of March (3 years, 2 months) than Bush did in 8 years. Just imagine what will happen if Obama is given a second term?

Some say that the Dems are driving 100 mph toward the cliff, the GOP is driving 50 mph toward that same cliff, but the tea party wants to turn the car around and drive in the other direction. Guess who I support?

As for Santorum's voting record, he had the 5th most conservative record amongst Senators who served during the same 12 years as he did. While he's not a Jim DeMint, he's still better than most.

As for the Czars, atleast Newt has promised to abolish every single one of them on his first day in office. I can only hope that Rick or Mitt would do the same. And since Van Jones was brought up, he certainly wasn't the only Czar Obama appointed who had a Marxist, Socialist, Communist, or Maoist past. Check out Cass Sunstein, Gary Samore, John Holdren, Todd Stern, Cameron Davis, Carol Brower, Ed Montgomery, and many more. Obama tends to surround himself with like-minded individuals whether some of you wish to believe it or not.

_________________
Image


February 17th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3030
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Which goes back to my post earlier in this thread, like maybe page 2.

You can tell a lot about a person by who he associates with.

Obama is surrounded by people who HATE this country for what it stands for. They want to change it into something that resembles Russia, or any other Big Government little freedom.

I just saw a report today that in his "2nd Term" Obama will abolish the 2nd amendment right to own firearms. This may be an impossible task, but the fact that he wants to try it alone, should send up warning flares, bells, whistles, and klaxons of all sorts.

The sooner this guy and his cohorts are flushed out of Washington, hopefully we can turn it around.

Sly, did you catch the British Parlimentarian members speech at CPAC? Unreal, and completely enlightening.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


February 17th, 2012, 8:30 pm
Profile
Veteran General Manager
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7126
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
Back on topic:

Also, he has stated on many occasions that he believes all US law must "comport to God's law". To me, that means that he believes that all laws should line up with God's law. Which means that he believes our system of laws are meant to be subject to the laws of the Christian God. That's not ok. In fact, it's unconstitutional. Take the 1st amendment together with Black's Law Dictionary, and you get the Establishment Clause: The establishment clause is "[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another." That last part is the key. the government is prohibited from favoring or disfavoring one religion over another. Openly stating that all civil laws must comport to (the Christian) God's law is explicitly favoring one religion over another. It's not right, and it's unconstitutional.


And do you really think that he would ever be able to effect a policy to do such a thing? NOPE.

FWIW. I even agree with him on that.

He can support the idea all he wants. But, unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

But, then again, Obama got that unconstitutional Obamacare passed. It will be overturned in court. But, that's besides the point.


February 17th, 2012, 9:01 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Which goes back to my post earlier in this thread, like maybe page 2.

You can tell a lot about a person by who he associates with.

Obama is surrounded by people who HATE this country for what it stands for. They want to change it into something that resembles Russia, or any other Big Government little freedom.

In my previous post, I only listed 7 Obama apointees with Marxist roots, but it actually numbers in the hundreds. If someone's position doesn't require Senate confirmation, it's a good bet that that person has been involved in an organization that is un-American. I include La Raza and CAIR in that description, so they aren't all commie bastards.

WarEr4Christ wrote:
I just saw a report today that in his "2nd Term" Obama will abolish the 2nd amendment right to own firearms. This may be an impossible task, but the fact that he wants to try it alone, should send up warning flares, bells, whistles, and klaxons of all sorts.

I made a brief mention of this about a week ago, but it has been on his wish list for quite some time. What do you think Fast and Furious was all about? Anyway, he's gonna use the UN, send his pitbull Eric Holder after states with loose gun laws, sign an exec order or two, and attempt to pack the Supreme Court with another anti-gun activist or two. Beyond that, there isn't too much he can do though. It takes 38 states to repeal or enact a constitutional admendment, so the 2nd isn't going anywhere soon. If Obama attempts to circumvent that process, there will be blood and lots of it. He may be stupid, but he ain't that stupid.

WarEr4Christ wrote:
The sooner this guy and his cohorts are flushed out of Washington, hopefully we can turn it around.

Unfortunately, it may take Iran or somebody else detonating a nuke over Washington, thus instantly vaporizing millions of politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, lawyers, activists, and assorted other scumbags who got us into this mess in order to fix it. Time will tell and that's the last resort option.

WarEr4Christ wrote:
Sly, did you catch the British Parlimentarian members speech at CPAC? Unreal, and completely enlightening.

No, but I heard about it. I did, of course, see the keynote address, as I do every speech that she makes.

_________________
Image


February 18th, 2012, 1:01 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Thoughts on Santorum
Pablo wrote:
Are you a fan of Coke or Pepsi? Slightly different flavor, but essentially the same thing. Some people are pretty damn passionate about their flavor of choice, of course marketing might have a little to do with that.

Oh wait, I didn't mean Coke and Pepsi, I meant Republican or Democrat.

The whole damn country better wake up and realize they are just slightly different flavors from one another with different marketing. Just like Coke and Pepsi, the ads change over time but the flavor doesn't. Sure we have Diet Pepsi and Coke Zero, but are they really all that different of a choice?

This thread is like arguing the nuiances of that flavor, but in the end mean nothing. The standards, "well at least he is better than this guy". Is that what we have come to?

Here is your pattern. The other "guy" gets elected, and then reelected. Then you "guy" gets elected and then reelected. And then the other guy... Well you get the picture.

So what will you do? You will vote for your side (or against the other side). You will care more about winning than results (cause just look at the results these two parties have produced the last 100 years). The next election cycle you will do the same thing.

It is silly and the definition of insanity. I can tell you which party will win this election and the next and the one after that without even knowing the candidates.

So what will it be? Coke or Pepsi? Isn't the world a better place with more beverage choices than just Coke or Pepsi?

I suppose that I ought to address this post since I agree with a lot of it. My choice is Tea, but that isn't a viable option at this point, so it's the lesser of two evils for me. The Democrats have been co-opted by the socialists, so that's an impossibility from my perspective. Meanwhile, the Republican establishment is socialist-lite, but they are much easier to overtake. In fact, that movement has already begun at the grassroots level, but it could regretably take a decade or more to accomplish it. Tea Party activists are becoming delegates and are taking over precincts within the Republican Party as we speak. I even helped get a Tea Partier elected as a delegate last year and it's kinda easy to do. Unfortunately, our country may be destroyed before we are able to completely co-opt the Republican Party, so it could be a lost cause. This was Plan A and we believed that it had a reasonable chance to succeed, but several now doubt this approach.

Plan B is to create a third party. It will not happen this year, but there is a decent chance that a major conservative party will form if Obama wins re-election. In fact, there is so much chatter about it, that I imagine that it will be one of the hottest topics of 2013 and 2014. Will it work? I don't know, but I think we all realize that something must be done. Some will say that this will ensure that the DemonRats control all aspects of government for the foreseeable future, but I'd imagine that they would screw it up so much (2010 revistited) that many of them would be voted out. I'll speak on this more later.

_________________
Image


February 18th, 2012, 1:45 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 232 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.