Most Republicans happy with GOP field

  • 172 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#101 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] ...just wondering what you think goes into/affects the price of oil and natural gas? I normally stay out of these threads, but every so often I see a statement that is too erroneous to ignore. I want to see if this is just such a statement. Keep in mind that the price in dollars is very different from what it actually costs someone. So we are talking about what goes into the 'value' or a barrel of oil. A dollar is just a means to transfer that value from one person to anotherrawsavon

the lines politicians say should not be used half hazardly in debates.... they are often unfounded and ill-defined.

how are things going mr. raw? you rarely show your self around these parts any more

Words and numbers are funny like that. Also, I have a new job at my old job (vertical/lateral move) that is bending me over and having its way with me...been too busy. Actually having to work at work sucks

i know that sometimes, not the last two days though 8)

surrealnumber5 :evil:

Avatar image for EasyStreet
EasyStreet

11672

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#102 EasyStreet
Member since 2003 • 11672 Posts

I sure hope so, their candidates should reflect the party.

Avatar image for GreySeal9
GreySeal9

28247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#103 GreySeal9
Member since 2010 • 28247 Posts

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] The whole Federal Reserve printing money and secrecy is treasonous. There... I made a horrible statement :rolleyes:DevilMightCry

Actually yes, if you had been serious about it you would have just made an incredibly stupid comment.

Most Americans agree with me though. I don't dispute that Perry was wrong by saying it, but I don't make a big deal about. At this ponit in time Bush's dog would make a better President than the current.

And you know this how?

Avatar image for QuistisTrepe_
QuistisTrepe_

4121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#104 QuistisTrepe_
Member since 2010 • 4121 Posts

I sure hope so, their candidates should reflect the party.

EasyStreet

After first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#105 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
Reminds me of that French dudes quote: "Every country has the government they deserve" Hopefully the non-republican Americans decide they deserve better than people like Perry and Bachman.
Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#106 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"] When Bernanke did the QE purchases, they were done in a measured fashion versus all in one sitting. He could simply reverse that the same way he started it, in measured increments over the same amount of time. This would cause DXY to rise back up again - probably not to 80, but close enough to where the price of oil does start dropping. When the dollar goes down, it makes it cheaper for other nations to buy dollars for oil, but it kills the U.S. because we're paying more for oil.topsemag55

This begs a few key questions:

1) How useful was QE at promoting growth and preventing deflation

2) How significantly did the drop of the index affect the prices of oil (and gasoline) Also, the opposite quesion: how much will a targetted rise in the index lower oil prices?

3) How much will the contractionary monetary policy restrict growth

Regarding the third question, merely because a policy is slower in the implementation process doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect. (albeit shocks are less likely, I would imagine) There is a relationship between the amount of currency in supply with growth and the rate of inflation.

1. Not useful at all, tbh. 2. The index is based upon the dollar versus a basket of selected currencies. As I said before, the dollar going down makes it cheaper for other countries to buy dollars to buy oil, but not the U.S., a stronger dollar does drive down oil. Gas was around $2.50 - 2.70 when DXY was at 80. It could even be less than that if speculators sell versus buy, as they drive up the price which exacerbates everything else. 3. Growth won't suffer as much as some would think if the pace of reversal is done correctly. All Bernanke would be doing is selling the bonds he purchased, he just sells the right amount to keep growth limitations in check.

1) There is room for the argument that QE didn't stimulate growth, granted. But it almost certainly prevented deflation.

2) The problem here is that you are assuming a causal relationship. Various factors play into gas prices and their changes, and it is simply unjustifiable to attribute the jump entirely to the drop in the index, considering the inherent volatility of oil prices. How much, exactly, of the rise in oil prices is due to policies like QE is absolutely essential.

3) Which brings us back to, more or less, the first question: Where exactly would we be had QE not been implemented? Without a counter-factual, it really is difficult to know. That said, it is, for the most part, consensus amongst the economics profession that deflation is undesirable.

Avatar image for DevilMightCry
DevilMightCry

3554

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#107 DevilMightCry
Member since 2007 • 3554 Posts

[QUOTE="EasyStreet"]

I sure hope so, their candidates should reflect the party.

QuistisTrepe_

After first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

This absurd idea that Democrat voters are "enlightened" is absurd. If anything, you should realize that independants account for the largest voting block during elections. Also the election of Barack Obama proves that it was a vote for slogans catchphrases and no substance. The man accomplished nothing of any significance. We
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#108 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
Obama's slogan should say "Just look at the other guy".. The top republican candidates are extreme, hypocritical, and much worse.. The most reasonable candidates like Romney are hated by the Conservatives more or less.. All Obama has to do is illustrate he is the lesser of two evils, and he will guarentee his victory in the general election.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#109 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="EasyStreet"]

I sure hope so, their candidates should reflect the party.

DevilMightCry

After first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

This absurd idea that Democrat voters are "enlightened" is absurd. If anything, you should realize that independants account for the largest voting block during elections. Also the election of Barack Obama proves that it was a vote for slogans catchphrases and no substance. The man accomplished nothing of any significance. We

Accomplished nothing of significance? You would think people would be complaining less about him 'ruining the country" if he had just maintained the status-quo.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#110 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="EasyStreet"]

I sure hope so, their candidates should reflect the party.

DevilMightCry

After first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

This absurd idea that Democrat voters are "enlightened" is absurd. If anything, you should realize that independants account for the largest voting block during elections. Also the election of Barack Obama proves that it was a vote for slogans catchphrases and no substance. The man accomplished nothing of any significance. We

Independents are people who really don't know anything about politics when it comes down to it.. And accomplished nothing of any significance? If that is the case your standards must be pretty high which means the radical majority of presidents for a few decades now hasn't accomplished anything.

Avatar image for maheo30
maheo30

5102

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#111 maheo30
Member since 2006 • 5102 Posts
Repubs might like the field. As a conservative, I don't. It is better than last election though. Dems are assured another 4 years if Romney wins the nomination.
Avatar image for DevilMightCry
DevilMightCry

3554

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#112 DevilMightCry
Member since 2007 • 3554 Posts

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

After first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

sSubZerOo

This absurd idea that Democrat voters are "enlightened" is absurd. If anything, you should realize that independants account for the largest voting block during elections. Also the election of Barack Obama proves that it was a vote for slogans catchphrases and no substance. The man accomplished nothing of any significance. We

Independents are people who really don't know anything about politics when it comes down to it.. And accomplished nothing of any significance? If that is the case your standards must be pretty high which means the radical majority of presidents for a few decades now hasn't accomplished anything.

I was OBVIOUSLY talking about his election. When he was a community organizer and Senator.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#113 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

Repubs might like the field. As a conservative, I don't. It is better than last election though. Dems are assured another 4 years if Romney wins the nomination. maheo30

.. He is one of the few sane candidates the republican party has running right now :|...

Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#114 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

[QUOTE="maheo30"]Repubs might like the field. As a conservative, I don't. It is better than last election though. Dems are assured another 4 years if Romney wins the nomination. sSubZerOo

.. He is one of the few sane candidates the republican party has running right now :|...

And polling data favors him over other candidates in a head-to-head against Obama.

Avatar image for maheo30
maheo30

5102

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#115 maheo30
Member since 2006 • 5102 Posts

[QUOTE="maheo30"]Repubs might like the field. As a conservative, I don't. It is better than last election though. Dems are assured another 4 years if Romney wins the nomination. sSubZerOo

.. He is one of the few sane candidates the republican party has running right now :|...

He can't win. The huge conservative base will stay home. They hate him. As one conservative said, "I'd rather be nude and pelted with paint pellets than vote for Romney." I agree. If Romney wins I stay home. Most the people in my church stays home. Most of the people in my area stay home. And no candidate can win if the base refuses to vote. It is too large.
Avatar image for GreySeal9
GreySeal9

28247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#116 GreySeal9
Member since 2010 • 28247 Posts

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="maheo30"]Repubs might like the field. As a conservative, I don't. It is better than last election though. Dems are assured another 4 years if Romney wins the nomination. maheo30

.. He is one of the few sane candidates the republican party has running right now :|...

He can't win. The huge conservative base will stay home. They hate him. As one conservative said, "I'd rather be nude and pelted with paint pellets than vote for Romney." I agree. If Romney wins I stay home. Most the people in my church stays home. Most of the people in my area stay home. And no candidate can win if the base refuses to vote. It is too large.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean anything.

You church and your area/=/GOP base.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#117 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

That isn't good for the country. Though it could be a great help for Obama as the GOP's race to the right primaries could alienate independents.

Avatar image for UniverseIX
UniverseIX

989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#118 UniverseIX
Member since 2011 • 989 Posts

the republican candidate will come down to Perry and Romney. Both of them are bad news, and I'd vote for George Bush over them any day. And I never liked George Bush.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#119 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23358 Posts
None of the serious contenders that could appeal to moderates are going to run against Obama. They'll wait 'till the next election. cybrcatter
By then the Tea Party movement may have overtaken the party too much for them to appeal to the Republican base.

Or perhaps by that time they'll have completely crashed and burned. Could go either way.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#120 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]None of the serious contenders that could appeal to moderates are going to run against Obama. They'll wait 'till the next election. mattbbpl
By then the Tea Party movement may have overtaken the party too much for them to appeal to the Republican base.

Or perhaps by that time they'll have completely crashed and burned. Could go either way.

I've seen some thing saying that the tea party is less popular than the things they hate (gays, muslims) according to recent statistics. Seems more likely they are on their way out.
Avatar image for jshaas
jshaas

2411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#121 jshaas
Member since 2003 • 2411 Posts

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]I'm happy. I'll be voting for either Bachman or Perry. :Drawsavon

Please, for the love of God, do not do that...this coming from a Texan.

As a Texan, can you elaborate? If he's so bad why has been the governor for the last decade?
Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#122 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23358 Posts
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="cybrcatter"]None of the serious contenders that could appeal to moderates are going to run against Obama. They'll wait 'till the next election. Ace6301
By then the Tea Party movement may have overtaken the party too much for them to appeal to the Republican base.

Or perhaps by that time they'll have completely crashed and burned. Could go either way.

I've seen some thing saying that the tea party is less popular than the things they hate (gays, muslims) according to recent statistics. Seems more likely they are on their way out.

I certainly hope so. Of course, if someone like Perry or Bachmann wins the primary I'll have to assume that their influence is still rather strong.
Avatar image for jshaas
jshaas

2411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#123 jshaas
Member since 2003 • 2411 Posts
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="cybrcatter"]None of the serious contenders that could appeal to moderates are going to run against Obama. They'll wait 'till the next election. Ace6301
By then the Tea Party movement may have overtaken the party too much for them to appeal to the Republican base.

Or perhaps by that time they'll have completely crashed and burned. Could go either way.

I've seen some thing saying that the tea party is less popular than the things they hate (gays, muslims) according to recent statistics. Seems more likely they are on their way out.

The TP may seem to be dying down, or so hopes Harry Ried and the rest of his sheeple. But, I think they're just giving the current field of GOP candidates time to make or break themselves over the next few months. I would certainly not dismiss them. They were the dominating force for the mid-terms in 2010, and I believe they will be the dominating force in November 2012. That's exactly why we see Maxine Waters and others claiming the TP is the "real enemy." Real enemy of what? I can only conclude that these people are scared that they're about to lose their jobs... and for good reason.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#124 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] By then the Tea Party movement may have overtaken the party too much for them to appeal to the Republican base.

Or perhaps by that time they'll have completely crashed and burned. Could go either way.mattbbpl
I've seen some thing saying that the tea party is less popular than the things they hate (gays, muslims) according to recent statistics. Seems more likely they are on their way out.

I certainly hope so. Of course, if someone like Perry or Bachmann wins the primary I'll have to assume that their influence is still rather strong.

To be honest, if one of them wins the primary it would give Obama a greater chance at a 2nd term considering the winner of the GOP primary went so far to the right to win.
Avatar image for CaveJohnson1
CaveJohnson1

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#125 CaveJohnson1
Member since 2011 • 1714 Posts

Wow, 80% of republicans like Bachman, that party has fallen so far it's sad.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#126 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23358 Posts
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] I've seen some thing saying that the tea party is less popular than the things they hate (gays, muslims) according to recent statistics. Seems more likely they are on their way out.DroidPhysX
I certainly hope so. Of course, if someone like Perry or Bachmann wins the primary I'll have to assume that their influence is still rather strong.

To be honest, if one of them wins the primary it would give Obama a greater chance at a 2nd term considering the winner of the GOP primary went so far to the right to win.

No doubt. I'm just saying that it would indicate a strong insurgence of the Tea Party and their ideals into the republican base if they were to win the primary. It wouldn't make them any stronger of a party in general elections, and almost certainly the inverse would hold true.
Avatar image for jshaas
jshaas

2411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#127 jshaas
Member since 2003 • 2411 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] By then the Tea Party movement may have overtaken the party too much for them to appeal to the Republican base.

Or perhaps by that time they'll have completely crashed and burned. Could go either way.mattbbpl
I've seen some thing saying that the tea party is less popular than the things they hate (gays, muslims) according to recent statistics. Seems more likely they are on their way out.

I certainly hope so. Of course, if someone like Perry or Bachmann wins the primary I'll have to assume that their influence is still rather strong.

Can you please tell what is so bad about the Tea Party? The federal government was never meant to be involved in every facet of our lives. So many federal agencies should not exist... EPA, Dept. of Education, IRS, Dept. of Agriculture, NLRB, etc. It's gotten too big, and too expensive. Their only purpose is to provide national security... everything else should be on the chopping block. That's what the TP is about. Sure, we see some of the wackos (which are sought out by the media no doubt)... but, every group has that. WBC claims to be doing God's work by protesting funerals of soldiers. They may claim to be Christians, but they are way out of touch. On the other side, we see "tree-huggers" that put the value of an animal's life over that of a human life. They too are way out of touch... too many double rainbows I suppose. So, please explain what is so bad about the TP.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#128 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] I've seen some thing saying that the tea party is less popular than the things they hate (gays, muslims) according to recent statistics. Seems more likely they are on their way out.jshaas
I certainly hope so. Of course, if someone like Perry or Bachmann wins the primary I'll have to assume that their influence is still rather strong.

Can you please tell what is so bad about the Tea Party? The federal government was never meant to be involved in every facet of our lives. So many federal agencies should not exist... EPA, Dept. of Education, IRS, Dept. of Agriculture, NLRB, etc. It's gotten too big, and too expensive. Their only purpose is to provide national security... everything else should be on the chopping block. That's what the TP is about. Sure, we see some of the wackos (which are sought out by the media no doubt)... but, every group has that. WBC claims to be doing God's work by protesting funerals of soldiers. They may claim to be Christians, but they are way out of touch. On the other side, we see "tree-huggers" that put the value of an animal's life over that of a human life. They too are way out of touch... too many double rainbows I suppose. So, please explain what is so bad about the TP.

You didn't mention that the Tea Party wants tighter regulation of people's private life.

Avatar image for UniverseIX
UniverseIX

989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#129 UniverseIX
Member since 2011 • 989 Posts

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] I've seen some thing saying that the tea party is less popular than the things they hate (gays, muslims) according to recent statistics. Seems more likely they are on their way out.jshaas
I certainly hope so. Of course, if someone like Perry or Bachmann wins the primary I'll have to assume that their influence is still rather strong.

Can you please tell what is so bad about the Tea Party? The federal government was never meant to be involved in every facet of our lives. So many federal agencies should not exist... EPA, Dept. of Education, IRS, Dept. of Agriculture, NLRB, etc. It's gotten too big, and too expensive. Their only purpose is to provide national security... everything else should be on the chopping block. That's what the TP is about. Sure, we see some of the wackos (which are sought out by the media no doubt)... but, every group has that. WBC claims to be doing God's work by protesting funerals of soldiers. They may claim to be Christians, but they are way out of touch. On the other side, we see "tree-huggers" that put the value of an animal's life over that of a human life. They too are way out of touch... too many double rainbows I suppose. So, please explain what is so bad about the TP.

mmmk it would certainly be interesting to see how people like you'd fair if those federal agencies didn't exist. I don't suspect very well.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#130 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23358 Posts

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] I've seen some thing saying that the tea party is less popular than the things they hate (gays, muslims) according to recent statistics. Seems more likely they are on their way out.jshaas
I certainly hope so. Of course, if someone like Perry or Bachmann wins the primary I'll have to assume that their influence is still rather strong.

Can you please tell what is so bad about the Tea Party? The federal government was never meant to be involved in every facet of our lives. So many federal agencies should not exist... EPA, Dept. of Education, IRS, Dept. of Agriculture, NLRB, etc. It's gotten too big, and too expensive. Their only purpose is to provide national security... everything else should be on the chopping block. That's what the TP is about. Sure, we see some of the wackos (which are sought out by the media no doubt)... but, every group has that. WBC claims to be doing God's work by protesting funerals of soldiers. They may claim to be Christians, but they are way out of touch. On the other side, we see "tree-huggers" that put the value of an animal's life over that of a human life. They too are way out of touch... too many double rainbows I suppose. So, please explain what is so bad about the TP.

While there are other reasons the Tea Party is bad, the bolded portion above contains enough reasons for me to not vote for them.

When a party's discussion shifts to getting rid of things like the EPA, industry regulation,and the IRS, I'm out.

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#131 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] I've seen some thing saying that the tea party is less popular than the things they hate (gays, muslims) according to recent statistics. Seems more likely they are on their way out.jshaas
I certainly hope so. Of course, if someone like Perry or Bachmann wins the primary I'll have to assume that their influence is still rather strong.

Can you please tell what is so bad about the Tea Party? The federal government was never meant to be involved in every facet of our lives. So many federal agencies should not exist... EPA, Dept. of Education, IRS, Dept. of Agriculture, NLRB, etc. It's gotten too big, and too expensive. Their only purpose is to provide national security... everything else should be on the chopping block. That's what the TP is about. Sure, we see some of the wackos (which are sought out by the media no doubt)... but, every group has that. WBC claims to be doing God's work by protesting funerals of soldiers. They may claim to be Christians, but they are way out of touch. On the other side, we see "tree-huggers" that put the value of an animal's life over that of a human life. They too are way out of touch... too many double rainbows I suppose. So, please explain what is so bad about the TP.

Those agencies that you listed are actually pretty good to have around. That and despite not being the entirety a pretty sizable portion of the tea party are bigots. The worst thing however is that there name totally misrepresents what the original tea party was about.
Avatar image for jshaas
jshaas

2411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#132 jshaas
Member since 2003 • 2411 Posts

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Can you please tell what is so bad about the Tea Party? The federal government was never meant to be involved in every facet of our lives. So many federal agencies should not exist... EPA, Dept. of Education, IRS, Dept. of Agriculture, NLRB, etc. It's gotten too big, and too expensive. Their only purpose is to provide national security... everything else should be on the chopping block. That's what the TP is about. Sure, we see some of the wackos (which are sought out by the media no doubt)... but, every group has that. WBC claims to be doing God's work by protesting funerals of soldiers. They may claim to be Christians, but they are way out of touch. On the other side, we see "tree-huggers" that put the value of an animal's life over that of a human life. They too are way out of touch... too many double rainbows I suppose. So, please explain what is so bad about the TP.mattbbpl

While there are other reasons the Tea Party is bad, the bolded portion above contains enough reasons for me to not vote for them.

When a party's discussion shifts to getting rid of things like the EPA, industry regulation,and the IRS, I'm out.

Do you realize how much money can be saved by eliminating these agencies? We need them on the state level, but that's it. Go to the Fair Tax, and the IRS is not needed any longer. The EPA has been killing job growth for years... beyond the recession. Our country's education system is ridiculously flawed. No Child Left Behind is a disaster. State and local governments can manage their own educational systems.

You didn't mention that the Tea Party wants tighter regulation of people's private life.

DroidPhysX
How so?
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#133 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

How so?jshaas

  1. Ban abortion
  2. Ban gay marriage
  3. Ban pornography.
Avatar image for jshaas
jshaas

2411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#134 jshaas
Member since 2003 • 2411 Posts

[QUOTE="jshaas"]How so?DroidPhysX

  1. Ban abortion
  2. Ban gay marriage
  3. Ban pornography.

This kind of goes back to our conversation we were having about majority rule vs. minority rule. So, I'll just go with this... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As for the three points you posted... #3 will be the hardest to accomplish. Abortion, I don't support at all under usual circumstances. If the mother's life is in serious danger... I'd really have to think about it. But, I can't say for sure what I would do since I haven't experienced that situation. On the topic of marriage... you can't change the meaning of a word to fit certain people's lifestyle. Call it civil unions, legal partnerships, or whatever you want... just not marriage. There are certain characteristics and traits that inherent to men and women separately. They each support the other, and create a balance. How is that achieved with same sex couples?
Avatar image for CaveJohnson1
CaveJohnson1

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#135 CaveJohnson1
Member since 2011 • 1714 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="jshaas"]How so?jshaas

  1. Ban abortion
  2. Ban gay marriage
  3. Ban pornography.

This kind of goes back to our conversation we were having about majority rule vs. minority rule. So, I'll just go with this... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As for the three points you posted... #3 will be the hardest to accomplish. Abortion, I don't support at all under usual circumstances. If the mother's life is in serious danger... I'd really have to think about it. But, I can't say for sure what I would do since I haven't experienced that situation. On the topic of marriage... you can't change the meaning of a word to fit certain people's lifestyle. Call it civil unions, legal partnerships, or whatever you want... just not marriage. There are certain characteristics and traits that inherent to men and women separately. They each support the other, and create a balance. How is that achieved with same sex couples?

They love and support each other as well? Duh

Avatar image for deactivated-5a79221380856
deactivated-5a79221380856

13125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#136 deactivated-5a79221380856
Member since 2007 • 13125 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="jshaas"]How so?jshaas

  1. Ban abortion
  2. Ban gay marriage
  3. Ban pornography.

This kind of goes back to our conversation we were having about majority rule vs. minority rule. So, I'll just go with this... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As for the three points you posted... #3 will be the hardest to accomplish. Abortion, I don't support at all under usual circumstances. If the mother's life is in serious danger... I'd really have to think about it. But, I can't say for sure what I would do since I haven't experienced that situation. On the topic of marriage... you can't change the meaning of a word to fit certain people's lifestyle. Call it civil unions, legal partnerships, or whatever you want... just not marriage. There are certain characteristics and traits that inherent to men and women separately. They each support the other, and create a balance. How is that achieved with same sex couples?

Words change meaning. This is nothing new. There is no practical difference between a legally recognized union and a marriage, other than how the law defines it. Also, your last point seems to be an argument against same-sex partnerships, which you seem to be in favor of, so it seems out of place. Same-sex couples can support each other and although they may lack what you define as balance in terms of masculine and feminine characteristics, that does not mean that their relationship cannot be successful.

Avatar image for peaceful_anger
peaceful_anger

2568

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#137 peaceful_anger
Member since 2007 • 2568 Posts

Well I'm sure as heck not. I'm still waiting for someone to jump in.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#138 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="jshaas"]How so?jshaas

  1. Ban abortion
  2. Ban gay marriage
  3. Ban pornography.

This kind of goes back to our conversation we were having about majority rule vs. minority rule. So, I'll just go with this... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As for the three points you posted... #3 will be the hardest to accomplish. Abortion, I don't support at all under usual circumstances. If the mother's life is in serious danger... I'd really have to think about it. But, I can't say for sure what I would do since I haven't experienced that situation. On the topic of marriage... you can't change the meaning of a word to fit certain people's lifestyle. Call it civil unions, legal partnerships, or whatever you want... just not marriage. There are certain characteristics and traits that inherent to men and women separately. They each support the other, and create a balance. How is that achieved with same sex couples?

You cant call it civil unions and give it the same benefits as marriage. Wouldn't that fall under 'separate but equal'?

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#139 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="jshaas"]

While there are other reasons the Tea Party is bad, the bolded portion above contains enough reasons for me to not vote for them.

When a party's discussion shifts to getting rid of things like the EPA, industry regulation,and the IRS, I'm out.

jshaas

Do you realize how much money can be saved by eliminating these agencies? We need them on the state level, but that's it. Go to the Fair Tax, and the IRS is not needed any longer. The EPA has been killing job growth for years... beyond the recession. Our country's education system is ridiculously flawed. No Child Left Behind is a disaster. State and local governments can manage their own educational systems.

You didn't mention that the Tea Party wants tighter regulation of people's private life.

DroidPhysX

How so?

Yeah who needs the EPA.. A service that ensures the safety of our public water supply :roll:.. Things like the EPA wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact the private sector doesn't give two craps about things like the safety of the public.. We saw this happen when a major American river caught fire in the 60s.. Due to all the polutants in the water.. Even right now the EPA and the Clean water Act due to lobbying is extremely out of date to keep up with the new chemicals that are being made and being dumped in the water supply.. I can't believe I have to explain the importance of many of these programs. Maybe you should look into the globalization problems of India where international corporations have taken advantage of the lax to no regulations for things like environmental in which they have poisoned large water supplies or made certain areas hazardous to live at.

Avatar image for rawsavon
rawsavon

40001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#140 rawsavon
Member since 2004 • 40001 Posts
[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]I'm happy. I'll be voting for either Bachman or Perry. :Djshaas

Please, for the love of God, do not do that...this coming from a Texan.

As a Texan, can you elaborate? If he's so bad why has been the governor for the last decade?

hand picked Bush successor got him in office. Great Texas economy (compared to the rest of the country) kept him there. ...but he did nothing to cause that boom/lack of recession (mainly oil and gas money plus a few other things) His educational policies have been disastrous He doesn't run a deficit b/c he is not allowed to by law He has a few great ideas combined with a whole mess of terrible ones this is the man that wanted to succeed from the union last year
Avatar image for GreySeal9
GreySeal9

28247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#141 GreySeal9
Member since 2010 • 28247 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="jshaas"]How so?jshaas

  1. Ban abortion
  2. Ban gay marriage
  3. Ban pornography.

This kind of goes back to our conversation we were having about majority rule vs. minority rule. So, I'll just go with this... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As for the three points you posted... #3 will be the hardest to accomplish. Abortion, I don't support at all under usual circumstances. If the mother's life is in serious danger... I'd really have to think about it. But, I can't say for sure what I would do since I haven't experienced that situation. On the topic of marriage... you can't change the meaning of a word to fit certain people's lifestyle. Call it civil unions, legal partnerships, or whatever you want... just not marriage. There are certain characteristics and traits that inherent to men and women separately. They each support the other, and create a balance. How is that achieved with same sex couples?

You're really just trying to justify the Tea Party's version of big government because you agree with them on those things.

Really, small government means that people have to put their personal views on these wedge issues aside. Live and let live.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#142 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23358 Posts

Yeah who needs the EPA.. A service that ensures the safety of our public water supply :roll:.. Things like the EPA wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact the private sector doesn't give two craps about things like the safety of the public.. We saw this happen when a major American river caught fire in the 60s.. Due to all the polutants in the water.. Even right now the EPA and the Clean water Act due to lobbying is extremely out of date to keep up with the new chemicals that are being made and being dumped in the water supply.. I can't believe I have to explain the importance of many of these programs. Maybe you should look into the globalization problems of India where international corporations have taken advantage of the lax to no regulations for things like environmental in which they have poisoned large water supplies or made certain areas hazardous to live at.

sSubZerOo

You're thinking about this all wrong. The government (and ESPECIALLY government regulations) is evil. Preventing that dumping is an assault on personal liberties.

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#143 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Yeah who needs the EPA.. A service that ensures the safety of our public water supply :roll:.. Things like the EPA wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact the private sector doesn't give two craps about things like the safety of the public.. We saw this happen when a major American river caught fire in the 60s.. Due to all the polutants in the water.. Even right now the EPA and the Clean water Act due to lobbying is extremely out of date to keep up with the new chemicals that are being made and being dumped in the water supply.. I can't believe I have to explain the importance of many of these programs. Maybe you should look into the globalization problems of India where international corporations have taken advantage of the lax to no regulations for things like environmental in which they have poisoned large water supplies or made certain areas hazardous to live at.

mattbbpl

You're thinking about this all wrong. The government (and ESPECIALLY government regulations) is evil. Preventing that dumping is an assault on personal liberties.

Yeah man. The smaller the government the better! Look how well Somalia is doing. I don't give a crap if I'm strawmaning the hell out of the small government crowed but come on, we've got no examples of a country that functions like how they want it to working properly. Almost all first world countries have large governments.
Avatar image for jshaas
jshaas

2411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#144 jshaas
Member since 2003 • 2411 Posts

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Please, for the love of God, do not do that...this coming from a Texan.

rawsavon

As a Texan, can you elaborate? If he's so bad why has been the governor for the last decade?

hand picked Bush successor got him in office. Great Texas economy (compared to the rest of the country) kept him there. ...but he did nothing to cause that boom/lack of recession (mainly oil and gas money plus a few other things) His educational policies have been disastrous He doesn't run a deficit b/c he is not allowed to by law He has a few great ideas combined with a whole mess of terrible ones this is the man that wanted to succeed from the union last year

But, he was re-elected twice. If he's so bad why do people keep voting for him... doesn't make sense to me. Of course, it didn't make sense to me that people voted for Obama.

On the point of him suggesting succeeding from the Union... I get that. It's based on the same reason why we had the Civil War. Slavery was really just a side note to whole thing. The southern states succeeded because they were tired of the government telling them how to live their lives. Fast forward to today and we see the NLRB telling American companies they can't expand to a non-union state. We see the DOJ filing suits against the states because they want to enforce a federal law at the state level. We see regulation after regulation after regulation... and anyone with common sense should be sick of it.

Some regulation is necessary, but there have been 75 new major regulations under the Obama administration. THIS IS WHAT'S KILLING JOBS!!! These regulations have long lasting effects, and businesses have to prepare to adjust to these regulations. That means they have to raise prices, cut salaries/jobs to pay for additional tools to meet new regulations.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#145 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23358 Posts

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="jshaas"] As a Texan, can you elaborate? If he's so bad why has been the governor for the last decade?jshaas

hand picked Bush successor got him in office. Great Texas economy (compared to the rest of the country) kept him there. ...but he did nothing to cause that boom/lack of recession (mainly oil and gas money plus a few other things) His educational policies have been disastrous He doesn't run a deficit b/c he is not allowed to by law He has a few great ideas combined with a whole mess of terrible ones this is the man that wanted to succeed from the union last year

But, he was re-elected twice. If he's so bad why do people keep voting for him... doesn't make sense to me. Of course, it didn't make sense to me that people voted for Obama.

On the point of him suggesting succeeding from the Union... I get that. It's based on the same reason why we had the Civil War. Slavery was really just a side note to whole thing. The southern states succeeded because they were tired of the government telling them how to live their lives. Fast forward to today and we see the NLRB telling American companies they can't expand to a non-union state. We see the DOJ filing suits against the states because they want to enforce a federal law at the state level. We see regulation after regulation after regulation... and anyone with common sense should be sick of it.

Some regulation is necessary, but there have been 75 new major regulations under the Obama administration. THIS IS WHAT'S KILLING JOBS!!! These regulations have long lasting effects, and businesses have to prepare to adjust to these regulations. That means they have to raise prices, cut salaries/jobs to pay for additional tools to meet new regulations.

I completely agree that some regulations can be harmful or wasteful while others are beneficial. If you would list out the 75 regulations you're referring to, we could discuss them in a more granular manner.

Avatar image for rawsavon
rawsavon

40001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#146 rawsavon
Member since 2004 • 40001 Posts

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="jshaas"] As a Texan, can you elaborate? If he's so bad why has been the governor for the last decade?jshaas

hand picked Bush successor got him in office. Great Texas economy (compared to the rest of the country) kept him there. ...but he did nothing to cause that boom/lack of recession (mainly oil and gas money plus a few other things) His educational policies have been disastrous He doesn't run a deficit b/c he is not allowed to by law He has a few great ideas combined with a whole mess of terrible ones this is the man that wanted to succeed from the union last year

But, he was re-elected twice. If he's so bad why do people keep voting for him... doesn't make sense to me. Of course, it didn't make sense to me that people voted for Obama.

On the point of him suggesting succeeding from the Union... I get that. It's based on the same reason why we had the Civil War. Slavery was really just a side note to whole thing. The southern states succeeded because they were tired of the government telling them how to live their lives. Fast forward to today and we see the NLRB telling American companies they can't expand to a non-union state. We see the DOJ filing suits against the states because they want to enforce a federal law at the state level. We see regulation after regulation after regulation... and anyone with common sense should be sick of it.

Some regulation is necessary, but there have been 75 new major regulations under the Obama administration. THIS IS WHAT'S KILLING JOBS!!! These regulations have long lasting effects, and businesses have to prepare to adjust to these regulations. That means they have to raise prices, cut salaries/jobs to pay for additional tools to meet new regulations.

I told you the exact reason he has been reelected twice in the message above. Why did you ask me basically the same question twice after I answered it :?
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#147 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="jshaas"]How so?jshaas

  1. Ban abortion
  2. Ban gay marriage
  3. Ban pornography.

This kind of goes back to our conversation we were having about majority rule vs. minority rule. So, I'll just go with this... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As for the three points you posted... #3 will be the hardest to accomplish. Abortion, I don't support at all under usual circumstances. If the mother's life is in serious danger... I'd really have to think about it. But, I can't say for sure what I would do since I haven't experienced that situation. On the topic of marriage... you can't change the meaning of a word to fit certain people's lifestyle. Call it civil unions, legal partnerships, or whatever you want... just not marriage. There are certain characteristics and traits that inherent to men and women separately. They each support the other, and create a balance. How is that achieved with same sex couples?

Why is that an issue? There's nothing sacred about the word "marriage," it's just, well, a word. Words change meaning all the time, and marriage is beginning to change in meaning.

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#148 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

  1. Ban abortion
  2. Ban gay marriage
  3. Ban pornography.

chessmaster1989

This kind of goes back to our conversation we were having about majority rule vs. minority rule. So, I'll just go with this... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As for the three points you posted... #3 will be the hardest to accomplish. Abortion, I don't support at all under usual circumstances. If the mother's life is in serious danger... I'd really have to think about it. But, I can't say for sure what I would do since I haven't experienced that situation. On the topic of marriage... you can't change the meaning of a word to fit certain people's lifestyle. Call it civil unions, legal partnerships, or whatever you want... just not marriage. There are certain characteristics and traits that inherent to men and women separately. They each support the other, and create a balance. How is that achieved with same sex couples?

Why is that an issue? There's nothing sacred about the word "marriage," it's just, well, a word. Words change meaning all the time, and marriage is beginning to change in meaning.

Good example of a word that has changed meaning: Gay There's another but I doubt GS would allow it to be used. Heck they're even relevant!
Avatar image for battlefront23
battlefront23

12625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#149 battlefront23
Member since 2006 • 12625 Posts

Ron Paul is the only sensible Republican left. True story.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#150 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

Ron Paul is the only sensible Republican left. True story.

battlefront23
His 'states rights' motto troubles me. Most modernized countries have big governments. I don't see how giving power back to the states in areas like gay marriage and abortion especially is suppose to help the U.S. as a whole.