posted
As former justice Stevens some years ago proposed:
The 28th Ammendment:
"Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historic boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that's very convenient if you want to disrespect the historical auonomy of the states, and the will of majorities within certain districts. Canada has a tenth of the US population. Districts and voting patterns within individual provinces matter far less.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is hard to say who won the Republican Presidential Debate tonight, But there is no question that the real losers of the debate were the moderators, who really got excoriated over and over again for demonstrating the hipocrisy and double-standard of the leftist Democrat-biased media mainstream. Candidates called to everyone's attention the improper and rude and absurd questions virtually all of them were being asked, and contrasted them to the softball lovefest type questions that were asked of the Democratic candidates in their debate. When Trump was asked if he were deliberately being a cartoon character of a political candidate, Trump complained about the question, but it was Cruz who really tore into the moderators, listing three or four similarly inappropriate questions that had just been asked of various candidates. Then Rubio said the liberal mainstream media was the worst superpac in the country. Chris Cristie rebuked the moderators for introducing the inane question about fantasy football. The first few moments of the debate, it looked like the candidates might snipe at each other like everyone expected--but after a few minutes of really bad and hostile questioning, the candidates obviously drew together, turned on the moderators and really shredded them. Several of the candidates bluntly contradicted the moderators when they made statements of fact that were wrong.
The first debate at 6:15 P.M. involving the candidates who were the last four in the polls, was interesting. The candidates all acquitted themselves well, but it is hard to say any of them will experience a "breakout" like Carly Fiorina did in a previous debate, and move up to the second tier of candidates.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As much as it pains me to agree with anybody on the stage last night, I would have to agree that the moderators could be described as, at worst, actively hostile, and, at best, well.... dumb. They were certainly not in control for much of the night. If they were going for a less formal, more genuine debate, I think it was naïve to expect it to happen with that many participants. If CNBC is, as all of the candidates claimed, blatantly partisan, then they did a terrible job furthering their own ends by allowing Marco Rubio to look good, as he is the only republican who has any chance of winning the general.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron is back just in time to talk to us endlessly about his predictions and analysis of the race, which will be "Hillary is getting owned and will lose" and in keeping with Ron's habit of being wrong every time, will be wrong I guess
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rubio is, in fact, the only proto-viable one they have left. The establishment has to figure a way to push him past the crazy-wall of their own party's populist dysfunction, unless they want to just completely throw the election so let's see how that goes
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, I thought the obvious strategy of "let's pander to our base by criticizing CNBC" worked pretty well for them, since it distracted from their inability to actually address issues or demonstrate moral fiber.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To be fair, I thought the obvious strategy of "let's pander to our base by criticizing CNBC" worked pretty well for them, since it distracted from their inability to actually address issues or demonstrate moral fiber.
it was the strategy that they had to rely on and which i would contend they were intending to rely upon well before the debate began.
Klein noted today that the tax plans of the republican candidates are just so incredibly out to lunch — such absolutely unworkable — that simply asking about them cannot sound anything other than extremely hostile.
quote:The Republican primary has thus far been a festival of outlandish policy. The candidates seem to be competing to craft the tax plan that gives the largest tax cut to the rich while blowing the biggest hole in the deficit (a competition that, as of tonight, Ted Cruz appears to be winning). And the problem is when you ask about those plans, simply stating the facts of the policies sounds like you're leveling a devastating attack.
Take the question to Trump. He wasn't asked if he was a comic book villain. He was asked why his policies sound like "a comic book version of a presidential campaign." And the question was specific. Moderator John Harwood asked, "Mr. Trump, you have done very well in this campaign so far by promising to build another wall and make another country pay for it. Send 11 million people out of the country. Cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit."
Trump declined to explain how he could cut taxes by $10 trillion without increasing the deficit. Instead, he appealed to another CNBC personality for support. "Larry Kudlow, who sits on your panel, who's a great guy, came out the other day and said, 'I love Trump's tax plan.'"
As for the wall, Trump didn't get very specific there, either. "A politician cannot get them to pay. I can." That is ... not an answer.
Similarly, Ben Carson wasn't asked whether he could do math. He was asked whether his tax plan's math added up.
"You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes," said moderator Becky Quick. "This is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I've had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this. If you were to take a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you're gonna bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it's gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole. So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?"
The ensuing exchange is worth quoting at length:
CARSON: The rate — the rate — the rate is gonna be much closer to 15 percent.
QUICK: 15 percent still leaves you with a $1.1 trillion hole.
CARSON: You also have to get rid of all the deductions and all the loopholes. You also have to some strategically cutting in several places.
Remember, we have 645 federal agencies and sub-agencies. Anybody who tells me that we need every penny and every one of those is in a fantasy world.
So, also, we can stimulate the economy. That's gonna be the real growth engine. Stimulating the economy — because it's tethered down right now with so many regulations...
QUICK: You'd have to cut — you'd have to cut government about 40 percent to make it work with a $1.1 trillion hole.
CARSON: That's not true.
QUICK: That is true, I looked at the numbers.
CARSON: When — when we put all the facts down, you'll be able to see that it's not true, it works out very well.
The question was extremely substantive. Carson's answer was laughably vague. The problem here isn't that Carson was asked whether he can do math, but that he couldn't show that his tax plan was based on sound math. And that's because it isn't.
As for the question to Kasich, he was asked about a speech he gave on Tuesday calling his rivals' proposals "crazy." As the New York Times reported, Kasich argued "that Republicans who proposed abolishing Medicaid and Medicare, imposing a 10 percent flat tax, or deporting millions of people were out of touch with reality."
Kasich is right about all that, by the way. And while the question was, as Cruz said, an invitation to attack some of the other candidates, it was keyed to a substantive debate about some very strange policy ideas.
Meanwhile, Cruz himself was also asked a substantive question. The moderators asked why he was opposing a bipartisan budget deal that would avert a debt ceiling crisis, a Medicare crisis, and a Social Security Disability Insurance crisis. Rather than answer that question, he attacked the moderators for refusing to ask substantive questions, during which he pretended a slew of unusually substantive questions were trivial political attacks.
Cruz's strategy was smart, and he was arguably the debate's big winner. But it bespoke a deeper weakness. Republicans have boxed themselves into some truly bizarre policies — including a set of tax cuts that give so much money to the rich, and blow such huge holes in the deficit, that simply asking about them in any serious way seems like a vicious attack. Assailing the media is a good way to try to dodge those questions for a little while, but it won't work over the course of a long campaign.
You have two candidates who likely never thought they'd be in the lead trying to figure out a) what got them there, and b) how to stay there. You have candidates who thought for sure they'd be in contention wondering what they have to do to even get noticed.
With 10 (or however many there are at this point) candidates, something has to be done to cut that number down. All you end up with are sound bytes if you let everyone speak - or a 5 hour debate, which no one wants or would watch.
But none of them want to answer any hard questions - and complain when they're asked.
The GOP race is wacko this year - none of them have a legitimate shot against Clinton, which is why they're trying to take her down in other ways (namely, botched Congressional hearings).
Hell, this is even a dream GOP field for Sanders, if he were to get nominated. Probably the only field of candidates he'd have a legitimate shot against. McCain or Romney would have crushed him... this lot? I don't think anyone has the umph to just beat him outright, and it'd be a fight over which side the voters are more scared of.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flying Cow, why do you refer to "botched Congressional hearings" when in fact it was proven beyond any question by producing the email documents, that Hillary Clinton told several heads of state right away that the attack was by an "Al Queda-like group," but to families of victims and the American people she kept repeating the silly video argument for the next week. As one of the candidates said (I believe it was Carly Fiorina) this proves that Hillary Clinton lied. The mainstream media of course claims she was the winner, and came through the hearing unscathed. That is typical of the total, pathological, systematic dishonesty of the liberal-biased mainstream media. But it was not the truth. Hillary was proven to be a liar. Anyone who would vote for a sociopathic, serial liar like Hillary is also a criminal, with no concern for morality.
Hillary truly deserves to be in prison, not in the White House.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did the hearing even ask about the video/attack? The commentary I've seen said it focused on emails from some guy.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, is it truly your opinion that the central question at the heart of the Benghazi investigation is whether the Secretary of State knowingly withheld information from the general American public for a couple weeks after the attack?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Flying Cow, why do you refer to "botched Congressional hearings"
Because the hearings had one purpose - to tarnish Hillary Clinton in the eyes of undecided voters. It failed in that task - thus, botched.
All it served in doing was make the members of the committee look foolish, and make voters feel more sympathetic with Clinton for having to deal with them.
No one other than those already solidly in the anti-Clinton camp were moved in any way by those hearings - if anything, some were moved in the opposite direction, seeing the hearing as political theater and being more likely to vote for her.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, the central question of Benghasi is why the Obama Administration, with Hillary as Secretary of State, did not respond to the dozens of requests for additional security from the Ambassador who was killed, and why none of the available military resources were authorized to go and intervene. The fact that Clinton lied about it is just further evidence of her criminality and incompetence. Actually, she and her husband should have been jailed 22 years ago. I think they had Vincent Foster murdered.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This interesting comment comes from Dr. John J. Ray:
quote:Leftist irrationality
Conservatives are well-used to Leftist irrationality. If you present a Leftist with some fact that undermines one of his claims, you will get not cool reflection or rational debate but rather rage, abuse and avoidance. In a face to face situation, the Leftist will actually walk away from you. So it is clear that, with Leftists, we are dealing with emotions not reason. They can write whole articles about (say) socialism without for one moment considering the facts about the practical impacts of socialism.
And those of us who can remember it remain quite astounded at the ecstasy among Leftists when Obama won his first Presidential election. Winning an election is cause for celebration for anyone but the Left really seemed to lose all touch with reality. They really seemed to believe that Obama's win signalled the time when "the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal". Not since King Canute has such a claim been made in politics and even Canute was more level-headed than that. Commentators spoke of "Obamania" and the "Obamessiah".
So we don't really need anyone to tell us that the Left are more emotional than conservatives but it is nice to see it confirmed in a careful set of psychological experiments and surveys.":
Are Leftists More Emotion-Driven Than Rightists? The Interactive Influence of Ideology and Emotions on Support for Policies"
By Ruthie Pliskin et al.
The authors looked at emotion generally but I have always argued that anger/rage/hate is the dominant emotion among Leftists. The authors above added in anger to their study more or less as an afterthought but did find that anger was a particularly powerful motivator among Leftists." Link for above: http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2015/10/leftist-irrationality-conservatives-are.html
This certainly describes the kind of mindset I find among many of the posters in this forum.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, the central question of Benghasi is why the Obama Administration, with Hillary as Secretary of State, did not respond to the dozens of requests for additional security from the Ambassador who was killed...
Ah. Do you believe that their failure to do so was criminal?
---------
(Note, by the way, that Ron has followed up his speculation on Vince Foster's death with a hit piece on leftist irrationality. He is, as always, unaware of the irony.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, the central question of Benghasi is why the Obama Administration, with Hillary as Secretary of State, did not respond to the dozens of requests for additional security from the Ambassador who was killed, and why none of the available military resources were authorized to go and intervene. The fact that Clinton lied about it is just further evidence of her criminality and incompetence. Actually, she and her husband should have been jailed 22 years ago. I think they had Vincent Foster murdered.
Honestly, trying to correct this crap is like emptying the ocean with a spoon. The White House did not order the military to "stand down". In his own testimony, General Ham, says that he made the decision not to go in. The rescue operation, which deployed in 20-25 minutes had already rescued the embassy personnel who were still there to be rescued. You want to talk about why there wasn't more security in the first place? Talk to your Republican congress critters. Secretary Clinton: House Republican budget cuts will endanger national security - Feb. 14, 2011Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, the central question of Benghasi is why the Obama Administration, with Hillary as Secretary of State, did not respond to the dozens of requests for additional security from the Ambassador who was killed, and why none of the available military resources were authorized to go and intervene. The fact that Clinton lied about it is just further evidence of her criminality and incompetence. Actually, she and her husband should have been jailed 22 years ago. I think they had Vincent Foster murdered.
Ah I missed this!
Every single point of yours is untrue; if they had any weight behind them whatsoever, *actions* by the Republicans likely would've been taken.
Instead, what we have here is basically 11 hours of advertisement for the Clinton campaign in which the undecided voting block got to see Clinton be presidential.
You are so up to the ear in believing in this bs that it is virtually going to guarantee a Clinton presidency.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yes, that's very convenient if you want to disrespect the historical autonomy of the states, and the will of majorities within certain districts. Canada has a tenth of the US population. Districts and voting patterns within individual provinces matter far less.
Huh? do you know what STV is? I don't see how this is relevant.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was amused Oct. 22 when Michael J. Fox appeared on the Jimmy Kimmel Show to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Back to the Future. He and Christopher Lloyd participated in an excellent skit. But during the interview, Fox admitted that the character "Biff" in the movie was modeled after Donald Trump. I enjoyed that segment so much that I checked, and found I only had the Back to the Future trilogy on VHS tape, so I decided to order the 25th anniversary edition on DVD from Amazon. It includes deleted scenes and other special features. I just received it today in the mail, and have begun watching the trilogy. There was much that I had forgotten, at least in the details,
Trump's candidacy resonates with a lot of people who are fed up with the liberal Democrat foolishness that is ruining America. But I do not favor Trump. I do not hold against him the fact that he is rich enough to be able to afford a trophy wife. Even serial trophy wives. What is a billionaire supposed to do? But I do think that the last thing America needs is another president who thinks he is a king--and with his enormous ego, that is likely what Trump would be.
I would favor Cruz, Rubio, Carson, or Fiorina. Any one of them would make mincemeat of Hillary Clinton in a debate (assuming she is not in prison, where she really belongs). It surprises me that Carson is doing so well. All along, I have been expecting him to be attacked for his religious background, just like Mitt Romney was attacked. Trump recently hinted at doing just that a little, but so far has not followed up on it.
While in many ways Carson would be the best man possible for president, I view him as something like a dolphin that saves human swimmers in trouble and guides naval vessels through reefs--and I would hate to see him surrounded by sharks in Washington.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone notice Ron is just sorta blogging at us and not at all responding to people's rebuttals?
Like I actually listened through the majority of the hearings at work and the Republicans screwed up big time. That's demonstrable.
quote: Yes, that's very convenient if you want to disrespect the historical autonomy of the states, and the will of majorities within certain districts. Canada has a tenth of the US population. Districts and voting patterns within individual provinces matter far less.
To address this again because I really still don't understand what you're trying to respond to here:
For Congressional districts in the House, which Congress can absolutely pass STV for without a constitutional amendment (the states are another matter but if they chose to use STV the same thing applies). As for the will of majorities? Again I'm not sure what you mean, this is assuming of course the majority elected representatives agreed to such a thing, but there's nothing about STV that violates the "will of the majority" within a district or whatever.
Each district elects three representatives using ranked voting with a 33% threshold. If a candidate gets over say, 60% of the vote, he gets elected and then his excess votes go to the second ranked individual (usually of the same party).
Likewise if all of the 10's and 11's percent candidates can't get the threshold than the candidate with the lowest votes drops out and his votes consolidated to those voters next-best preferred candidate until someone has 33-34%.
This allows voters to have districts/ranges/constitutencies with local representatives while also ending gerrymandering.
The states would obviously have to implemented it locally based on local procedure but nothing stops Congress from doing it for the House. In fact nothing stops Congress from having the house have more representatives, originally there was a formula used until a bill was passed to set it to the current number today.
Finally I have no idea why Canada is relevant to your point, as Canada also uses FPTP though thankfully might be reforming to AV or something else in the coming 18 months.
Basically virtually every vote now counts and everyone in every district now has a representative that most closely approximately represents their interests.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that my favorite part so far is that Ron thinks Carson would beat Clinton in a debate.
I would love nothing more than to see captain tramadol in any sort of one on one debate. Maybe you could make it fair by putting Clinton in a medically induced coma
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you should lay off on the digs about how he speaks. That's usually what gets people fired up to defend him and there's plenty of digging material on the substance of what he says.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've ranted enough about that, but I guess I could point out that economic plan of his again. It speaks for itself as long as you loop a barfing sounds over it
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elison, I do not need to respond to utter stupidity. That is all you liberal Democrats have. Your opinions are too dumb to even be interesting. Just because you call your comments "rebuttals" doesn't mean that they really are.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Elison, I do not need to respond to utter stupidity. That is all you liberal Democrats have. Your opinions are too dumb to even be interesting. Just because you call your comments "rebuttals" doesn't mean that they really are.
So is this your version of complaining about "gotcha" questions?
Tell me Ron, how is Carson going to pay for the federal government with a flat tax of 15% without shrinking the federal government by 40%, I'm waiting.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Among the several things wrong with that statement: according to Carson, those 'amateurs' were constructing the Ark with the direct, inspire guidance of God. Who unless I misunderstand Christianity, is supposed to be a pretty good authority on most things, including the art of being a shipwright. I may be understating things.
Which would mean they...weren't amateurs? Or...something? Oh and perhaps we could talk a little more about that whole global genocide-minus-a-few-favorites story that necessitated an Ark at all? I can't wait to hear about the love!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Elison, I do not need to respond to utter stupidity. That is all you liberal Democrats have. Your opinions are too dumb to even be interesting. Just because you call your comments "rebuttals" doesn't mean that they really are.
This is more brazenly dishonest and cowardly than you have been in the past this early in election cycles in the past, Ron. Though in a sense it is more honest for you to speak this way since you always end up there eventually. Kudos!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Among the several things wrong with that statement: according to Carson, those 'amateurs' were constructing the Ark with the direct, inspire guidance of God. Who unless I misunderstand Christianity, is supposed to be a pretty good authority on most things, including the art of being a shipwright. I may be understating things.
I imagine his claim would be that he is an amateur political leader who would have the direct, inspired guidance from God.
quote: Elison, I do not need to respond to utter stupidity. That is all you liberal Democrats have. Your opinions are too dumb to even be interesting. Just because you call your comments "rebuttals" doesn't mean that they really are.
Ron, speaking as a moderate here, can you sell Carson to me and why I should vote for him? I don't want to hear anything about the Left or why Hillary is the devil. Just explain to me, in specific terms, what his plans are and what problems they will solve. I promise I will listen with an open mind.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
GaalDornick, I do not wish to sell Dr. Carson to you. I would be glad if he were elected, but right now I favor Sen. Ted Cruz. His people say that they took in 1.1 million dollars in the 22 hours after the debate. So that sounds to me very much like a real indication that he won the debate.
One thing I do not like about Carson was his statement that he would not have sent in troops to Afghanistan in the first place. That was right after 911, and it is the president's primary job to take action when American is directly attacked. President Bush was right, and wise in the way he managed it, sending in Special forces to assist the Northern Alliance, to coordinate with American air power, and they succeeded in defeating the Taliban in only one month--something Russia failed to do after many years of warfare.
Also I respect and admire Dr. Carson, and like I said earlier, I would hate to see him surrounded by sharks in Washington. (Although he seems to be able to handle himself dealing with the opponents he has had to deal with so far. Even Trump has been forced to respect him--albeit grudgingly.)
Concerning the Ark--it is really rather silly even to comment on this. But Noah and his family had 120 years to build the Ark. We do not know what limits to technology people had before the Flood. The Bible does tell us that Noah, his family, and Methuselah (who also worked on the Ark) were very long-lived, and obviously bigger and stronger than humans are now. It would be foolish to underestimate what they could have accomplished. Of course, if you are locked into the mindset of evolution, and believe that people back in Noah's day had to be less intelligent and less capable than we are today, then to be corrected you would first have to be disburdened of the modern myths that mainstream science has chosen to adopt as a virtual faith--one that determinedly ignores a vast wealth of solid, contrary evicence. But mention of such evidence only makes them angry and hateful. They flatly refuse to consider it.
[ October 30, 2015, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'll tell you what my perception of him is and you can tell me why I'm wrong.
As a moderate, I think that both conservatives and liberals want what's best for the country with different ideas on how to do so. Government works both when both sides argue, but compromise. From my understanding, Cruz engineered a government shutdown because he was not willing to accept funding for the ACA. To me, compromising would be speaking to the Democrats, explaining his concerns with the bill, and how they could modify it to address some of their concerns. But instead he prefers to shutdown the government.
Whenever I hear him talk, he speaks as if Obama is always wrong because he's either too stupid or too evil to do what's right. He never articulates why he disagrees with Obama's policies civilly. I would vote for a conservative that can say that Obama is doing what he believes is best for the country, but is wrong for X reasons.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really do agree with Cruz that Obama is truly evil, deliberately trying to weaken America and bring us down to the status of a third world nation. He spent his childhood in Africa, and was schooled in Indonesia, before coming to America to attend college as a foreign student--so he has the mindset of his third-world upbringing. It was precisely to prevent this that the Constitution requires that a president be a native born and raised American. His senior advisor is Vallerie Jarrett, who was born in Iran. You don't think it is a coincidence that the outrageous "treaty" he claimed he got with Iran so completely favors Iran? And even though Iran has openly terminated the treaty, Obama still is willing to limit us as if the treaty were in effect. How stupid can stupid be?
Obama's main gun to counter the Republican majority was to threaten to shut down the government (and blame it wrongly on the Republicans). If Republicans in Congress and the Senate had shown that they were willing to stand up to Obama, as Cruz wanted them to, he would have been forced to back down, and then we would have seen some real compromise. Obama is the one who has never listened to the opposition. He behaves like he thinks he is a king, and he believes that no matter how shamelessly he tramples on the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers, his loyal Democrat liberals will support him no matter what.
I also believe that Planned Parenthood is so monstrously evil, that the United States of America has no right to exist as a nation if it continues to fund this abomination. Congress should refuse to provide one cent of public money to this terrible shame on America, no matter what Obama tries to do about it. Congress controls the purse, not the president.
[ October 30, 2015, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:His senior advisor is Vallerie Jarrett, who was born in Iran.
Why does this matter even a little bit about Jarrett
like do you actually know her life story or are you so gullible that you'll just affix to a single contextless fact about her (SHE WAS BORN IN ~IRAN~ OMG) and then be sure she's an america-hating iranian agent or something
No seriously Ron are you dumber than even I give you credit for
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, that's nuts. If Obama was really that evil, our economy wouldn't have improved so much since 2009. You can make the argument that the economy would have improved anyways, but if a Commander in Chief deliberately wants to destroy America, things would be a hell of a lot worse off than they are.
Valerie Jarrett has two American parents and she lived in Iran until she was 5. Not exactly a long time to become a loyal Iranian. But listen to yourself -- your politics are based on conspiracy theories. I asked you about Carson and Cruz because I want to hear a conservative's explanation on why their policies and ideas would be effective, not this conspiracy garbage.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know nothing about Jarrett but I dated a girl born in Iran. She was more patriotic for America than I am.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you see, it's that Obama is extremely evil and wants to destroy america, but so far he's just, uh, really ... bad at it, I guess, so bad that america just got, uh, better. now that's incompetence
I mean if obama wanted to destroy america he'd just veto all budget appropriations and just do a few other extremely easy things a POTUS can do without real opposition and yet for some reason he just doesn't do it
but i guess all we really learned is that ron is really bad at credible conspiracy theories it's so boring i am going to fall asleep before i finish this pos
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Concerning the Ark--it is really rather silly even to comment on this. But Noah and his family had 120 years to build the Ark. We do not know what limits to technology people had before the Flood. The Bible does tell us that Noah, his family, and Methuselah (who also worked on the Ark) were very long-lived, and obviously bigger and stronger than humans are now. It would be foolish to underestimate what they could have accomplished. Of course, if you are locked into the mindset of evolution, and believe that people back in Noah's day had to be less intelligent and less capable than we are today, then to be corrected you would first have to be disburdened of the modern myths that mainstream science has chosen to adopt as a virtual faith--one that determinedly ignores a vast wealth of solid, contrary evicence. But mention of such evidence only makes them angry and hateful. They flatly refuse to consider it.
It's paragraphs like this that really illustrate just how far off the reservation Ron has drifted, and how futile it is to engage with him in any rational way.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. First of all, even if evolution said that people were less intelligent a few thousand years ago than now, that would have no bearing on my point.
Which was simply this: under no meaning of the word 'amateur' that people use would Noah&Co. be considered amateurs. If we accept the story entirely on its own grounds, they were being guided and managed directly by the creator of reality. Who would, by definition, be a more than adequate shipwright.
Of course Dr. Carson is familiar with the biblical story of Noah and the Ark and the Flood, so of course he knows this. Which makes his pithy remark about experts and amateurs either a cynical lie or an empty piece of stump speech. Because, as Dr. Carson believes that story, they weren't amateurs.
Of course I expect Ron to ignore this or lie about it, as is his style when discussing politics-when he isn't simply evading direct challenges.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I really do agree with Cruz that Obama is truly evil, deliberately trying to weaken America and bring us down to the status of a third world nation. He spent his childhood in Africa, and was schooled in Indonesia, before coming to America to attend college as a foreign student--so he has the mindset of his third-world upbringing. It was precisely to prevent this that the Constitution requires that a president be a native born and raised American.
Aside from all that being a lie (Obama was born in Hawaii, a state in the united states, and he was raised in Honolulu, for which there is ample, overwhelming first person evidence), The constitution requires only that a person be "a natural born" citizen of the united states. The constitution does not even strictly require that a person be born within the territory of the United States, if we are to follow the interpretation of citizenship law as it has been applied for the past several decades.
Tom Cruz, your favorite candidate, was not born in the United States, but is also a natural born citizen. Interestingly, he was also a citizen of Canada until last year (though he may have been unaware of the fact before 2013).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But I do think that the last thing America needs is another president who thinks he is a king--and with his enormous ego, that is likely what Trump would be.![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
