On OC, and the antecedents of the TP

Ms. Sanchez has been mentioned

I've never received a Christmas card from her (I'm guessing this is one of those talk radio memes) but I have met her; and yes, she might be described as having a bold gaze. How this compares to election fraud, etc., I have no idea. It seems to me fairly within the range of normal human behavior.

Contrast with - Dana Rohrbacher (spel?) comes into a cafe where I'm with a ladyfriend, lowers his glasses on his nose and theatrically glares around the room. With him is his chief of staff/fiance. Dana is easily into his 50's, the young woman is in her early 20's - but appears much younger, presexual even, an effect only heightened by her wearing a catholic school girls outfit, white blouse and plaid skirt, complete with backpack. They honeymooned in the south of France.

Or - John Schmitz, father of Mary Kay Letourneau; himself the father of two in an adultureous relationship, ok, but when the children's mother died when they were around 12, Schmitz said he had no responsibility for them and they ended up in an orphanage.

Or - Dornan again, cruising around Newport Beach in his convertible with his chief of staff, when the man turns to Dornan and says "Poppy, I'm gay."

Or - not a member of congress, but a woman who was a prominent local conservative activist, her son kidnapped a young woman whose car had broken down on the freeway, killed her, drove the body to Colorado, and kept it in a freezer in a U-Haul truck.

It's just, you know, beyond odd.
 
Maybe The Colonel should start another thread called "On Chicago, and the antecedent of OWS":bla:
 
LOL... not even needed

No, suffice it to say that the OWS crowd leaves behind tons of garbage: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ebris-left-behind-at-city-hall-tent-city.html , dead bodies, rape victims, dirty needles, lice and the thanks of grateful conservatives, who will be only too happy to remind Americans of the Democrats' support of this undertaking, no matter how much the Dems try to walk back their praise.

Look... I completely understand where this antipathy is coming from: it's a sense of helplessness as Democrats see what they'd won in 2008 all slipping away from them. Sanchez - and her sister - are inconsequential as Congress critters go and a healthy dose of election fraud was what got Loretta elected in the first place. I have a friend who did receive one of said Christmas cards from Loretta - she runs in her crowd, and that card was a keeper. The shot about it being a radio talk show meme is typical, as are the ad hominem attacks. The fact that election fraud has always been a tool of Democrats is one reason why they fight against photo ID at the polls. We are living during a time of the most deceitful, duplicitous administration there has ever been. This was highlighted just today by Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who spotlighted how the Obama administration had nagged Congress to prepare heavy sanctions against Iran's central bank and when they had them readied, the same administration is now actively working against them: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G46Fnc_gVx4"]Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) rips Obama administration for opposing Iran sanctions - YouTube[/ame]

Then there's this: http://pjmedia.com/blog/fbi-criminal-informant-complicit-in-brian-terrys-death-pjm-exclusive/ which ties back to the Fast & Furious operation and the fact that the administration has for some unknown reason sealed the record of the murdered Border Patrol agent implicated... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...agent-implicated-fast-and-furious_610783.html

Obama told a crowd just last night: “I’m going to need another term to finish the job.” There may be a majority of Americans who would respond that that is what they fear. The man can't run on his record, as that has been filled with utter failure, an inability to change course when his actions have failed and a disregard for the truth. He promised he would unite Americans, but he and his crowd of theoreticians have been the most divisive group of people in a good many years. Anyone of the candidates who have appeared on the debate stage over the course of the last several months would arguably do a better job than this guy. And now panic is beginning to take hold within the Democrat ranks and more of them will announce that they have made decisions to not seek re-election. They understand the gravity of the situation and that November 2010 was a minor shore break compared to the tsunami of next November.
 
Last edited:
And granting any and all of that...

what does the GOP offer? You keep acting as if any alternative to Obama is going to accomplish something of significance. What? Romney's 59 point plan? it's just nothing. Same old, same old cliches.
The candidates are so poor that there is a revolving door of 'anyone-but-Romney' extras. Constantly harping on the failures of Obama is one thing, but what are your guys actually going to get done if they get in? Based on the record of two two term GOP Presidents since 1980 the government will grow at an unprecedented rate, deficits will explode, and we will spend even more money on an increasingly ineffective militarized foreign policy. It matters not at all what the depredations of the Democrats are if we have more of that kind of 'conservative' government. What's the plan? Obama stinks, now what? They are down Gingrich for cryin out loud!
 
While I think they are all pretty pathetic (except Paul) they could do worse than Gingrich. He probably has the strongest claim to balancing the federal budget of any politician alive today including Bill Clinton.
 
If you have a sincere interest

do your own homework, USTA. Each of the candidates has released what they would do to help right the ship of state. Be responsible, self-accountable and do some research... it will help you grow.
 
Yeah, and every single one of them except Ron Paul and Gary Johnson propose nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.
 
Even with Paul's

1920's outlook on the world, he would still be an improvement over Obama... raccoon coat, jazz-age and all.

Gingrich and/or Romney would slice and dice Obama and his TOTUS in a debate.
 
Matthew said:
Yeah, and every single one of them except Ron Paul and Gary Johnson propose nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.
Click to expand...

I think you've given several of the candidates short-shrift and you've let your advocacy of libertarianism impede you. Just my opinion.
 
Not really. They won't touch an obviously bloated defense budget. There is no way they are serious.
 
Paul told a whopper during the last debate, when he said: “Believe me. They’re cutting... they’re nibbling away at baseline budgeting, and its automatic increases. There’s nothing cut against the military. And the people on the Hill are nearly hysterical because they’re not going... the budget isn’t going up as rapidly as they want it to. It’s a road to disaster. We had better wake up.”

The process of sequestration will cut spending on the military from the fiscal year 2011 over the next several years. Defense spending is categorized as follows: personnel, ships, planes and weaponry, which is known as "base budget" is one category and then there's the Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO. Given that OCO is hard to predict and is based on decisions made by whichever administration is in power, only the base budget is budgeted. When a trillion dollars in defense cuts is estimated, it will only involve the base budget.




Congressman Paul includes the OCO in his projections, when they aren't even affected or a part of the calculation.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12490/10-26-DiscretionarySpending_Testimony.pdf
 
So if you leave out the part of defense they aren't cutting than there are cuts? Is that what you are saying?:confuse2:
 
So, you really have no answer...

is what you are saying. I have 'researched' this and Matthew is absolutely correct. The only candidates proposing anywhere near the $4T to $6T minimum needed to arrest the debt problem are the two he mentioned. Romney doesn't even try;in fact he doesn't even talk about the economy just 'business' as if they were co-extensive. They place too much faith in 'growing our way out' of this mess. Well, that little idea is getting a hell of beating in Europe right now. Slashing spending and growing the economy is a long term proposition not a way to put people to work now.Whatever the shortcomings of the Libertarians they at least acknowledge that their philosophy is a long haul effort. The GOP can't even decide if it is in favor of the payroll tax cut for the next 12 months. Can't give up it's sabre rattling at Iran or tackle Social Security or Medicare in an election year(the only year it actually matters) the party is a joke and the candidates in the lead are the head clowns.
 
Well, I don't see...

anything like the sort of budget reductions or economic growth in the following that would even justify his claim to paying off a paltry $450B of the $14T debt and yet this is how he frames his policy.
And the reference to Reagan should be a warning-Reagan left office with the biggest budget ever and federal tax revenues as % of GDP almost identical to Carter's up near 19% (we are currently at 15%). So how does that work as 'fiscal policy'?




Policy
Gingrich frames his economic policy using a five-point plan.

Eliminating the National Labor Relations Board, replacing the Environmental Protection Agency and repealing ObamaCare.

Cut regulations on financial institutions

Employing a fiscal policy that is based on Reaganomics

A one-year tax moratorium, coupled with the elimination of capital gains tax and bringing down the corporate tax rate to 12.5%

Limiting unemployment benefits to a maximum of four weeks
 
Matt, it doesn't matter....

sequestration doesn't kick in for another year and more; it won't kick in at all if Congress has its way; and if it does it represents a puny .6% of GDP, not even one quarter of what is needed even if they go through with it.
we are $5T in the hole. These pathetic $1.2T over ten years is a sham. Paul is right and the Bowles-Simpson commmittee was right in talking in the $4-6T range-meaning, as Paul pointed out, $1T right now.
 
The top line that is highlighted yellow on that chart shows a ten year extrapolation of fiscal year 2011 base defense appropriations in inflation-adjusted dollars. The numbers don't factor in spending, they only factor in inflation. Then look at the fifth row that's highlighted in red: those are the numbers that show what's projected for the yearly base budget appropriations under the sequestration. That shows that the defense budget will be cut in large amounts not even taking inflation into consideration.

Adjusted for inflation, there will be $882B in non-baseline cuts to core military spending over ten-years, as is highlighted in green. Without taking inflation into account, there will still be a reduction - or cuts - of $228B over the next 7years.

Ron Paul lied.
 
Not much of a cut....

but if the price of admission to actually get them is to admit that Ron Paul 'lied' -give me a ticket. But as I say above, they aren't going to happen (not under sequestration at any rate) Congress is already getting its feet lined up to reverse itself on the automatic cuts and they have 14 months to accomplish the volte face and by that time Obama's promised veto will be moot. The GOP will probably cave on the payroll tax and use that as basis for quid pro quo concessions on 'realigning' the sequestration amounts-in other words saving the Pentagon budget at the expense of some domestic program. No doubt they will find a way to do this negotiating when the stakes on something else are high-debt limit, continuing budget resolution, something... so that in the end everyone can claim that there was simply no choice but to go along, no matter how much they hated the idea-poor them!:( For all
I suspect that Paul's comments on 'nibbling away' are in fact along the lines outlined above.
 
"There’s nothing cut against the military."

Based on that chart, Ron Paul's statement was untruthful. There have been proposals that have been made that address entitlements (e.g., Romney's Medicare proposal) that may prove to be "the answer", but none that I care to go into detail about with you, USTA. Stop your victory mincing long enough to do some research.

BTW... Obama said his payroll tax cut was temporary, that it was a "holiday". It's somewhat telling that no one in the media is asking him about that fact.
 
Last edited:
OMG!

Where do I start, or just talk about how silly this all is.

Circa the mid 90s I was working welfare to work, and quite involved in the "put people to work" movement. I was a volunteer on a number of chambers of commerce, and was really looking for a solution to some of OC's unemploymnet issues.

I responded to an email written by a certain someone who I will not mention. Never before did I meet the reality of what protectionism is, and fifedom as oppossed to real change.

I wrote so much more, but I'll just be the guy who live it and knows better.

Some of us are Republican for a reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top