text:
Ted Cruz's Unexpected History
Is anyone surprised that Ted Cruz officially announced he's running? Perhaps the fact that he did it without the near-sacred and obligatory "exploratory committee" with its poking into poll number possibilities and fondling of fundraising options, indicates that Senator Cruz is serious about changing Washington DC. Everything he's done so far in Congress has proven him to be as combative and as much a maverick as people expected him to be. But the question is, will he be able to change - in beltway terms not in heartland terms where it already is a reality - the meaning of the term "conservative"? While most in the GOP will agree that they wish to change if not eliminate Obamacare, Cruz is taking his Tea Party conservatism a step further and is also aiming his guns at corporate welfare.
Ethanol subsidies is an obvious place to start and Cruz is against them. He'll have to stand tall, if you will, in the corn fields of Iowa and take the heat and somehow convince enough delegates there so as not to sink from view. Iowa is not always the best predictor of who will get nominated, never mind elected, but it does serve as an early opportunity for media exposure for underdog candidates. How they survive the rest of the nomination process is another question, of course. And that brings up the point that many Republican voters seem to welcome Cruz's entry into the race, while doubting at the same time that he can actually win the nomination or the presidency. We need his ideas, we need his passionate defense of Tea Party principles but he's never going to make it to the White House, seems to already be the standard reply.
In other words, who might vote for Ted Cruz? Evangelicals - mostly Liberty University students - who filled the Vines Center are one core of supporters, and the other group is Tea Party conservatives. But perhaps this is the great unknown that almost everyone seems certain they actually know the answer to. Most everyone seems to agree that it is a limited group of voters who would actually support the senator from Texas in an election or nominating convention. But, if Ted Cruz can inspire and motivate with an honest and uncompromising message, like the one he gave on Monday, then we can't really put a fence around who may turn towards that message. While Cruz may sometimes appear as mean as LBJ was said to be, he also seems capable of the inspiring rhetoric that an older actor and ex-governor was capable of. And it bears remembering that Reagan was mercilessly mocked by much of the media, as well as the Democrats, who warned of impending doom should he be elected. History told another story. Ted Cruz may just be savvy enough and honest enough, (yes you can be both), to write an unexpected history over the next year and a half. Despite both sides of the political community having already written him off. He's the smartest candidate, one of, if not the most passionate, and the most combative as well. It's not a combination to be taken lightly by anyone.Posted by Keeley at March 24, 2015 9:37 PM
We have had 6 years of inexperience in the W.H with 2 years left another inexperienced politician in the W.H. would be a disaster for this country. Talk is cheap, we need someone who can lead with experience not someone who can talk pretty.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 25, 2015 7:47 AM
I agree that we need voices like Ted's but I also think he's probably in the best spot for his message already. The candidate who best matches our own ideology, be it a Cruz or a Warren, is not going to be the best candidate to vote for as President. I agree with Rich we need someone who can build consensus and lead as that's the main ingredient that has been sorely lacking with the current President.Posted by: George in SC at March 25, 2015 9:26 AM
Talk is cheap, we need someone who can lead with experience not someone who can talk pretty.
The bar you have set for the repub candidates is quite high KAP. What experience does Cruz possess that qualifies him to be considered presidential material?
It seems to me Keeley has given us the best side of candidate Cruz and well the pickings are slim. I mean how hard is it to be "combative" and "passionate" when you are on the bench shouting to the players on the field? The sad thing is Keeley may be right with the comment Cruz is the smartest of the repub candidates. But then his competition is guys like Perry.
"The sad thing is Keeley may be right with the comment Cruz is the smartest of the repub candidates. But then his competition is guys like Perry."
How dare you! Rick Perry wears glasses!
I still think Cruz can surprise everyone and be the candidate. Part of it is a process of elimination. Jeb Bush will have the money, and money almost always wins, but it is hard to imagine anyone voting for another Bush. Jeb, no one owes you this, buddy. Get a job.
Christie and Perry have serious legal issues. They will do well just to stay out of jail. Walker does too, but I suspect he will successfully dodge his issues. No, Walker will do himself in by making too many mistakes. He's not ready for prime time. That does not mean he could not be better prepared in 2020 though, because this is only his first run. Rubio is feckless and weak. He was supposed to guide through the Legislature what the GOP identified as its most important single priority, immigration reform, and Steve freakin' King (IA) stole his thunder. That's just sad.
That leaves Cruz. He's smart. He will say absolutely anything to curry favor with the base. Sometimes he will say contradictory things in a short time, like 'America is great,' and then, 'America is no longer great because of Obama.' He lies, and he knows it, but that doesn't matter to him, because he is ambitious and he says what he thinks the base wants to hear. He wants to abolish the IRS and line up 100,000 IRS agents on the border. There are so many things wrong with that idea, it is hard to even know where to start. And yet, Cruz says it, knowing it is abysmally wrong. He knows it. And yet, that is an applause line with the GOP base.
It is terrible and it is dumb, but I think that will be good enough to win the nomination this time around. And that is not a compliment to the GOP base.Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2015 11:12 AM
It's early I'm sure there will be more then those that were mentioned in the above comments. I hope we get a candidate that has some leadership experience be it Dem or Rep.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 25, 2015 12:05 PM
It's not only for the repubs., J2 it's for the Dems. to something that should have been set 6 years ago when the inexperienced person we have occupying the W.H. was first elected and 51% were stupid enough to elect him again.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 25, 2015 12:35 PM
Well KAP the dems picked Obama and all that inexperience over Hilary and the experience way back in '08. It has worked out well considering we could have had McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan.
I guess the problem is what you guys consider experience and it seems to me it is business experience that counts with you. Of the repubs that would have been Romney but his experience was in raping and pillaging companies for personal gain. Now McCain had political experience but not the wisdom that comes with it. Pretty obvious when he chooses Palin as his running mate. SO IMHO Obama was the right choice and you should thank that 51% for making the correct choice with all the noise out there.Posted by: j2t2 at March 25, 2015 2:11 PM
J2, Didn't the same thing happen to the Dems, Gore then Kerry. I guess people liked Bush over them. So I guess Bush was the right choice then. But I do think Dems screwed up and should have picked Hilary.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 25, 2015 2:32 PM
No, J2. The problem is what you guys consider "worked out well."
Anybody who says the country is in a good place right now, isn't living in reality.Posted by: kctim at March 25, 2015 4:56 PM
More fun with Cruz…
He purchased Obamacare- health insurance coverage- for himself and his family. He pretends he is being forced to do it, but that is simply not true. He does have a choice. So the guy who is perfectly happy denying health insurance coverage for others, and even encouraging young people not to sign up, suddenly signs up himself.
But it gets even better. Today Cruz trotted out some Global Warming denial talking points. The points were factually dead wrong, but that's not the interesting part. Cruz compared himself to Galileo! And people who recognize Global Warming as the Flat Earthers! There are so many things wrong with that… Galileo based his conclusions on observations, while the Flat Earthers based their conclusions on religious beliefs. Big difference.
It is one of those head slapping, face palming moments.
Of course, Cruz is directing it to the Republican base. It will probably be good enough to do well with the GOP in the Iowa caucuses, the South Carolina Republican primary, and a few other bastions of assertive ignorance. Cruz is counting on it.Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2015 5:01 PM
Anybody who says the country is in a good place right now, isn't living in reality.
KAP, remember what the country was like when Obama took office in 2008? Compared to then I would say things have worked out fairly well.
Remember the death panels and financial ruin Obamacare was supposed to cause? Well of course nothing of the sort happened. I can't remember a time when our elected officials tried so hard to intentionally hinder progress as this past few years of the Tea Party caucus along with most other repubs.
Remember the infrastructure bill the repubs…. oh wait they were to busy trying to repeal Obamacare to do anything. But they did shut down the recent infrastructure bill Bernie Sanders pushed. Despite all the negatives from the conservatives and repubs things have improved considerably since Obama took office.
But I can agree we are facing, as a nation, our own self caused problems, with all the fear mongering and such we have been subjected to from the conservative propaganda. We are a bit beaten down as conservatives in state legislatures deliberately pass laws that send the states into a tail spin financially, states such as Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin. But then again we knew the outcome and chose not to believe it didn't we? But the problem is we can't blame that on Obama it was self inflicted by the voters of those three states. They voted Brownback, Jindahl and Walker back into office.Posted by: j2t2 at March 25, 2015 5:21 PM
j2 I suggest you read the comment you are referring to and check who wrote it.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 25, 2015 6:10 PM
KAP, you are right, sorry to direct my response at you instead of kctim.
PHX8 you might like Lewis Blacks take on Cruz.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/lewis-black-not-even-taking-lsd-in-my-youth-could-prepare-me-for-ted-cruz/Posted by: j2t2 at March 25, 2015 8:28 PM
Good video. Lewis Black can be a funny guy. Republican Peter King (NY) called Cruz a "carnival barker." That's pretty good.
J2, yes I remember quite well what the country was like in 2008. We spent that year hearing about how our "murdering fascist war-mongering war criminal redneck hillbilly President" had committed a coup in 2001, caused 9-11, started a war for oil, hated brown people, threw grannies from the cliff, hated women, hated gays, caused the recession etc… all in his quest to rule the world.
I remember extremists, who claim to care about women's rights, set out on a mission to personally attack and destroy a woman and her entire family simply because she was attractive and did not support abortion or gay-marriage.
I remember being called a racist because I didn't support the policies Obama was running on. I remember being told "Obama didn't mean what he actually said, he meant something else," for the first time. Ah, good times.
How do I remember all of that? Because it started in freaking 2000 and continues to this very day.
To be fair though, what I remember most is that the people weren't as divided as we are today, and that I still had freedom of choice over my health care and insurance.
My President didn't call me unpatriotic for not wanting to pay wasteful taxes. My President didn't tell me that my own hard work is not what built my success. My President didn't tell me that I was unfairly being treated better simply because of the color of my skin. My President didn't blame me for the failures of others.
But yeah, J2, you go right on believing that simply having a President who agrees with your politics means things are so much better today, and that things would be so much better if others would just stop hindering your ability to get the material things you want provided by government.Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2015 10:12 AM
kct, so much dissatisfaction expressed by you that it seems incomprehensible to normal people. You were dissatisfied in 2000 with what everyone was saying about the President you supported then and now you express extreme dissatisfaction with our current President. You seem difficult to please, to say the least. Unfortunately you are not a good barometer for judging the condition of our country for anyone but yourself. The extreme feelings you express should give anyone concern regarding your ability to objectively discuss politics. Some of us do believe that things are much better because of the actions President Obama has taken, we also believe that more can and will be done as long as people like Ted Cruz are not allowed near the control levers of power and government. That you disagree is apparent however you don't provide any hope for the future in your extreme expression of dissatisfaction. Gloom and doom is all we have heard since President Obama's election the first time from people like yourself. I thought this country was supposed to be destroyed by now. What happened?Posted by: Speak4all at March 26, 2015 10:42 AM
kctim, If you can remember back that far you should also recall the years when Clinton was president and the here to for unparallelled bitterness and disrespect coming from conservatives directed at not only Clinton but his wife as well. The witch hunts at taxpayers expense, the insults towards his family etc..
But seeings you ran us off subject so far with the GWB years, as if it were relevant to whether we are doing better now when compared to Obama taking office, I have to agree that we are more divided today than even back then. It has become progressively worse over the years IMHO but can we blame Obama for the actions of the conservative propaganda machine? Surely it isn't his fault many Americans believe Obamacare is socialized health care. Or that socialized health care is bad as many Americans have been led to believe despite all evidence to the contrary.
The onslaught of myths misinformation half truths and outright lies coming from the conservative media has been assaulting Americans since before he took office. According to them he is a Muslim, Christian, Marxist, Socialist, Kenyan Radical who supports Terrorist. Well you get the picture, but doesn't that kind of crap make it worse than it really is? Despite all the fear mongering from the right we, as a nation, are still better off much better off than when Obama took office.Posted by: j2t2 at March 26, 2015 11:46 AM
Very excellent post (Comment #390854) Tim. You highlighted the tip of this corrupt iceberg.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2015 12:30 PM
Obama's motto: "To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target."Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2015 12:49 PM
RF, please quit with the made up canards. If you can't make a sentient statement perhaps you shouldn't engage your keyboard. Well at least you didn't start calling people a twit and using vulgar insults, yet. RF's motto: "I say what I want and I think what I say is right but it doesn't make sense to anyone but me but that's OK cause I just like to read the nonsense I type". Give Ted a couple of years and he will be singing the praises of enrollment in a health exchange to anyone privately. He will still use his sycophant schtick for the Republican/Tea Party base though.Posted by: Speak4all at March 26, 2015 12:56 PM
Washington originally wanted Iran limited to a ceiling of 500 to 1500 centrifuges. Just a year ago the administration floated 4000 centrifuges as a possible compromise.
The latest assumption is that the administration may settle for 6500 machines.
Should this be the final number of centrifuges allowed Iran I am quite certain that obama will hail this as his target and hitting it.
A TWIT is a slightly annoying person Speak. You fit that definition for me.
SLIGHTLY because what you write is so absurd as to be funny.
ANNOYING because you repeat your errors ad-nauseum.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2015 1:27 PM
RF, speaking of repeating errors ad-nauseum I have informed you of the meaning of the word twit before but you obviously did not read it then. Maybe you will enlighten yourself this time? It can be used as either a verb or a noun, neither of which refers to a person in the definitions. Try to learn the English language from some place other than restroom walls.
The Iranian people will have nuclear power, what they do with that is something we will all have to wait for. Your prognostications in the past have not been reliable at all so I can't take what you predict to be anything that should be accepted with any relevancy.Posted by: Speak4all at March 26, 2015 3:05 PM
LOL…how long did you search various dictionaries to find one that didn't mention a "slightly (or silly) annoying" person. You use whatever definition you wish, I will use mine.
Regarding this administrations ever-increasing allowance for Iran's allowed number of centrifuges…it is common knowledge except apparently, for you.
The obama/kerry goal in these negotiations with Iran is an agreement no matter how devastating. These two men have decided that Iran shall have nuclear weapons and are only arguing the date at which this will occur under the agreement.
I can not conceive of any greater threat to world peace and safety than Iran having nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Please tell us that you are not naive enough to believe that Iran will be a responsible possessor of nuclear weapons.
When Iran has nuclear weapons, so will their proxies. Every country in that part of the world will race to have their own nukes. Proliferation will proceed at an alarming and ever more dangerous pace.
obama/kerry will become the greatest failures ever imaginable in American history; hated and despised by even the left.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2015 3:41 PM
I would love to play poker with obama and kerry. They would fold a Royal Flush if challenged.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2015 3:42 PM
RF, as expected you still haven't opened the link to the definition or you would have readily seen it to be from dictionary.com. You would seem to get your vocabulary and definitions from the restroom wall I mentioned previously.
We have been hearing that Iran was "6 months away from getting a nuclear bomb!!!!" from your type for many, many years now. How many years does it take to make up 6 months for you guys? Get your calculator out and start punching in those numbers or maybe just pull it from where you get your definitions and vocabulary?
If proliferation will continue at an alarming rate then the only solution would seem to be to destroy all nuclear weaponry, no matter who has them.
When the Barack Obama Presidential library opens up you can go and read first hand of his accomplishments for this country.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind playing cards with you since you can't seem to tell the difference between 6 months and many, many years.Posted by: Speak4all at March 26, 2015 4:11 PM
RF, it would appear that you enjoy "twitting" about the word twit. Since I haven't used the word other than in discussion with you I will have to bow to your "twit" experience and leave it at that.
Hey how about turning the conversation to your support for candidates that exemplify conservative values, small but effective government with a dedication to fiscal responsibility. I'd like to hear your opinion on that since I already got your opinion on President Obama (ad-nauseum and all).Posted by: Speak4all at March 26, 2015 4:45 PM
Speak, it is way to early for me to comment on Republican candidates. I know very little about them at this time except for some speeches, talk show and TV appearances and the limited reading about them that I have done.
My candidate can be similar to obama; little experience but high in leadership.
My candidate will differ from obama in the directions he/she wishes to lead the country.
My candidate will lead all Americans rather than simply respond to party pressure for those selected for reward.
My candidate will be expected to show respect for our constitution and bill or rights.
My candidate will place American security above any other goal.
My candidate will stress family values as the road to recovering national values. He/she must lead in extolling the traditional role of marriage with both a husband and wife in the home with their children.
My candidate will stress getting a good education combined with hard work and diligence as the road to success rather than government handouts. Self reliance rather than government reliance will be the rallying call.
My candidate will understand that federal taxes come from the hard work of those paying them. They will not be squandered for political purposes.
My candidate will choose his/her advisors based upon ability rather than party allegiance and willingness to skirt or break our laws.
My candidate will understand inalienable rights versus government granted rights.
My candidate will win back the trust and cooperation of our allies by demonstrating intelligence, faithfulness, and unswerving devotion to promoting freedom and liberty around the world.
Speak, all the above attributes I am looking for in my candidate will not be easy to find. I will vote for the one who possesses the most of them. I care not for gender, race, religion, or ethnicity.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2015 5:44 PM
RF, admirable attributes but the devil is in the details, as they say. The most admirable of attributes deployed with only a single objective can cause great harm unintentionally. What are your feelings regarding the make up of the American electorate. It would seem that we are moving away from white male dominance in politics. Inter-racial, inter-ethnicity and definitions of acceptable sexual preferences seems to be gaining significant ground these days as they have done for the last 20 years or so. How would those attributes be received by all of the voting electorate not just the ones with a conservative bent? This is the problem facing candidates today and you can tell by all of the flip flopping that comes about. There is also the problem of running on the left or right but realizing that governing comes from the middle. Just remember we can't go back in time, laws of physics and all.Posted by: Speak4all at March 26, 2015 5:56 PM
Speaks writes; "It would seem that we are moving away from white male dominance in politics. Inter-racial, inter-ethnicity and definitions of acceptable sexual preferences seems to be gaining significant ground these days as they have done for the last 20 years or so."
The makeup of the American populace, and thus the electorate, is in continual flux as it should be. We are not a static nation decrying diversity in our citizens.
It is not, nor should it be, the role of government to encourage or discourage any group of citizens over another group of citizens. Love for another human being is not contingent upon race, creed, ethnicity, religion or even gender. The heart wants what it wants.
The president should not be expected to have a view on everything! We should not care or follow what a president privately believes. Social issues should be debated by individuals in their respective states.
The nation suffers when our government, whether congress, the executive or the judicial branch attempts to settle every issue anyone can conjure up.
A nation of over 300 million people forms a consensus over time. Our states truly are the laboratories of new ideas. Successful ideas spread, not by law, but by proven success.
Power must devolve back to our states and communities. Washington is necessary for some things, but not all things.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 26, 2015 6:25 PM
I support or don't support policy, not people. I was not dissatisfied with what people said about Bush any more than I am with Obama. It's politics.
What I am dissatisfied with is the ugly personal attacks from leftists nowadays when the facts do not support their cause.
I am actually VERY easy to please: You let me live my life as I wish and I let you live your life as you please.
"The extreme feelings you express should give anyone concern regarding your ability to objectively discuss politics."
Only if they do not wish to engage in facts. If they wish to ignore facts and babble incoherently about their love and support for a politician simply because they share liberal beliefs, they are incapable of objectively discussing politics.
"Some of us do believe that things are much better because of the actions President Obama has taken"
Of course you do, Speaks. I know I always felt better when my parents took stuff away from my siblings and gave it to me.
Here's the thing, you feel better because somebody is giving you the material things you desire, whereas I feel better when my rights and freedoms are left alone.
"we also believe that more can and will be done as long as people like Ted Cruz are not allowed near the control levers of power and government."
People like Cruz quote and preach about the Constitution, OF COURSE you guys think things would be better if they have no say in things.
"That you disagree is apparent however you don't provide any hope for the future in your extreme expression of dissatisfaction."
For people who support the Constitution, there is no hope for the future of our individual rights and freedoms if you guys have your way.
"Gloom and doom is all we have heard since President Obama's election the first time from people like yourself."
Um, no. Doom and gloom is all you have heard from the carbon copies of yourself who are on the right side of the aisle.
What you have heard under Obama from people like myself, is the same thing you from us under Bush: This or that infringes on our individual rights and leaves We the People open to more government abuses in the future.
"I thought this country was supposed to be destroyed by now. What happened?"
What happened is that you don't hold your guy accountable for the same things you hold the other guy accountable for.
What happened is that you started making excuses for government abuses, because they now mostly affect rights and freedoms you don't care about.
What happened is that you put your personal beliefs ahead of what's best for the country.
Basically, what happened is that you stuck your head in the sand once a liberal became President.Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2015 9:23 AM
RF, "A nation of over 300 million people forms a consensus over time." That number, 300,000,000, is somewhat intimidating, isn't it? Just imagine if you or I could somehow garner a position to see that great diversity of citizens, all at one time? It would be exhilarating and yet overwhelming, don't you think? I sometimes think this is the projection that we display. It is exhilarating to think what those 300 million citizens can do and what their government could accomplish but it also overwhelms one when thinking of the authority and power that the government would wield by having that. I sometimes think it is a simple as that. The left looks for the accomplishments that a government of 300 million could make. The right looks at the dangers of wielding that much authority and power. There must be some middle ground to build on here. That number of 300 million is expected to grow, due to steady birth rate and naturalization of immigrants that this country has always had to count on. In fact this Pew report indicates a projected population of 438 million by 2050. I believe that some progressive democrats look forward to that increase in population and the voice that they will bring to the world but I understand the fears that others harbor of the intimidation and loss of normalcy that they see eroding because of that number. There needs to be a voice for those many, many citizens. 50 voices would seem to be unable to be digested properly by all who want this country to do better but that is what we have to work with today. I hold optimism that this can be accomplished within the frame work that we have, but it will change.Posted by: Speak4all at March 27, 2015 9:44 AM
kct, you really need to stop using your delusional projections of what I think to support your unfounded beliefs. I do not get anything from our government for free, I pay taxes, I do not blindly support any and everything that is liberal, although a lot of liberal thoughts make sense to me. You accuse everyone of treating former President Bush in the worst way when you know for a fact that it was really only some people and can't point to anything specifically that I have said about him. You have no idea of how I accomplish and get the things I want in life but find it necessary to accuse me of taking something away from you, that is delusional. Basically you have your head buried somewhere that doesn't lend itself to practical and logical digestion of information. You keep typing about "facts" that you have. I haven't ever got any of those from you on this blog but instead have read your delusional comments about what you think I and other progressive democrats are.Posted by: Speak4all at March 27, 2015 9:55 AM
Of course I remember the Clinton stuff, I voted for the guy and defended him right up until he lied to the American people. The thing is though, that was all mostly political hyperbole targeted at politicians. People weren't called racist hating rednecks for simply disagreeing with government health care back then. Supporting traditional marriage didn't mean you feared and hated gay folks.
"It has become progressively worse over the years IMHO but can we blame Obama…"
We can only blame Obama for his part in it, "bitter clingers" "You didn't build that" and using race in choosing sides before the facts are known, are some examples.
The rest is due to the policies he supports and the actions of the extreme leftists willing to do anything to force their agenda onto the nation.
"Surely it isn't his fault many Americans believe Obamacare is socialized health care."
No, that is not his fault. It his fault that he does not understand why Americans define socialism the way we do, and for forcing an unwanted government program onto the people.
"Or that socialized health care is bad as many Americans have been led to believe despite all evidence to the contrary."
If a person believes in freedom of choice, socialized medicine is bad, no matter how much money it might save.
"The onslaught of myths misinformation half truths and outright lies coming from the conservative media has been assaulting Americans since before he took office."
Really? So why is just NOW that everybody is called a racist for believing in any of them?
"According to them he is a Muslim, Christian, Marxist, Socialist, Kenyan Radical who supports Terrorist."
According to a few outspoken people with extreme beliefs, he is those things. The left just lumps them in with everybody who disagrees with them to get votes.
"Well you get the picture, but doesn't that kind of crap make it worse than it really is?"
Only for those who play political games. Those who love or hate him simply because he is a liberal.
For the rest of us, losing more of our freedom of choice, more wars, the constant attacks on our 1st and 2nd amendment rights, the spying, the ever increasing police state etc… are what makes things worse than they have ever been before.
BECAUSE of all the fear mongering and excuses from BOTH, the left AND right, we as a nation, are worse off than ever before.Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2015 10:21 AM
The thing is though, that was all mostly political hyperbole targeted at politicians.
kctim, does "feminazi" ring a bell? You act as if Limbaugh didn't exist back then. I could go on and on and on but you get the point. Conservatives have been at the fear and hate thing for a good many years, That is why I laugh when they tell us their hatred and vitriol aimed at Obama is because of the way GWB was disrespected. It just doesn't hold water that flimsy "well you did it to GWB" thing.
People weren't called racist hating rednecks for simply disagreeing with government health care back then.
And they aren't now kctim. They earn the term racist for their words and deeds when they attempt to oppress minorities. I am a bit surprised you are so thin skinned on the name calling kctim, as your guys have been at it and have called many a name, it seems as the left started to respond in larger numbers and equal rancor was about he time conservatives started complaining. But remember
"mega dittos" it was a bit funnier then, but you reap what you sow.
We can only blame Obama for his part in it, "bitter clingers" "You didn't build that" and using race in choosing sides before the facts are known, are some examples.
Poor examples to get your feathers so ruffled IMHO kctim. These were words taken out of context and never intended as insults, but instead were explanations of who those that heard the original message were targeting for votes in the case of "bitter clingers" and a speech that in context was exactly right.
The rest is due to the policies he supports and the actions of the extreme leftists willing to do anything to force their agenda onto the nation.
IMHO those you define as extreme leftists just want equal rights, liberty and justice for all not just the 1% kctim. As for willing to do anything perhaps this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, just ask Tom Cotton when it comes to forcing an agenda upon the nation.
No, that is not his fault. It his fault that he does not understand why Americans define socialism the way we do, and for forcing an unwanted government program onto the people.
But I think he does as do I understand why you guys define it so broadly. It benefits your extreme views and allows your propagandist to recruit those not really paying attention to your agenda. That being said I also think "Americans" is an exaggeration as it is in reality some Americans not most Americans that have such a broad definition of what socialism is.
If a person believes in freedom of choice, socialized medicine is bad, no matter how much money it might save.
Yep it is a problem but isn't that why we have a representative democracy? I feel the same way about the bloated military and our spending billions on offensive as but I still pay taxes as I am in the minority. Now if I was right on all issues all the time I would probably cast my opinion in stone and demand we as a nation stop doing this and other things I don't like or I could grasp onto a ideal such as "freedom of choice" and using it to suggest we have lost all choice in our medical care. I think it may be part of the price of civilization.
Really? So why is just NOW that everybody is called a racist for believing in any of them?
Just Now? I can only venture a guess kctim as I thought racism has been going on for some time. It has been several years now that conservatives have been using the reversed racism meme. But to think that the onslaught of conservative propaganda doesn't eventually take it toll on the country is wrong kctim. A lie repeated often enough… after all.
Sigh. According to a few outspoken people with extreme beliefs, he is those things. The left just lumps them in with everybody who disagrees with them to get votes.
The problem as I see it is it is more than a few with extreme beliefs that propagate this stuff. It is destructive and when people hear such nonsense from say Fox News they tend to believe it and it affects their judgement. This type of destructive propaganda is how Hilter got so many decent Germans to go against their better selves and crate the nightmare that was WWII.
"Well you get the picture, but doesn't that kind of crap make it worse than it really is?"
Only for those who play political games. Those who love or hate him simply because he is a liberal.
I would suggest it has a negative impact on the country as a whole.
For the rest of us, losing more of our freedom of choice, more wars, the constant attacks on our 1st and 2nd amendment rights, the spying, the ever increasing police state etc… are what makes things worse than they have ever been before.
Well we have some common ground kctim. Although I don't see the constant attacks on the 1st and 2nd amendment other than in the conservative medias fear mongering. I mean by now Obama was supposed to have confiscated all our guns and made the country a Muslim theocracy but as we both know that hasn't happened. The militarization of the police state has continued, but once again this started with the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" has upped the ante a bit. Bit lets remember back in the days of Regan and GHWB conservatives were all up in arms demanding we get tough on crime, so be careful what you wish for. I would also suggest that the recent upsurge in easing the open carry and CCW laws we should expect the police to be a bit more jumpy and quicker to the trigger than before. Once again fear mongering has lead to this militarization of the police IMHO.
BECAUSE of all the fear mongering and excuses from BOTH, the left AND right, we as a nation, are worse off than ever before.
In some cases we are worse off but notice the irony here kctim. The gun rights activists have been fearful since Obama has come into office of confiscation and conservatives at the state level have responded but by doing so have only made the problem worse. Should we blame Obama for the fear mongering by these gun rights activist and the laws passed by state legislatures?Posted by: j2t2 at March 27, 2015 12:44 PM
"Gun Control is Black People Control"
I watched this video in stunned silence. Take a look.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embeddedPosted by: Royal Flush at March 27, 2015 1:56 PM
Limbaugh is part of the political game I mentioned. What I am talking about is how bad it is NOW on a personal level amongst the people.
Yeah, you laugh when they point out how terrible you guys treated President Bush, and I laugh when you guys try to ignore that and claim it's all about racism with Obama. Meh.
"They earn the term racist for their words and deeds when they attempt to oppress minorities. "
BS. Not giving people money, material objects or special treatment simply because of what group they fall in, does not mean you are oppressing them.
The simple fact is that you guys know how poisonous that word is and that people would rather do nothing than take the chance of being labeled a racist.
"I am a bit surprised you are so thin skinned on the name calling kctim, as your guys have been at it and have called many a name,"
Oh, I'm not thin skinned about it at all, I know why it's BS. I just like pointing out leftist hypocrisy.
"Poor examples to get your feathers so ruffled IMHO kctim."
Please, J2. I am not somebody who listens to radio and repeats what was said. I have read what was actually said, and in the context for which they were given.
First, let's remember that we are talking about dividing the people. Now, if we look at Obama's quote it is VERY clear that he is singling out those who are religious, support the 2nd Amendment and who favor legal immigration into our country. And then dismisses those principled beliefs as financial frustration?
That is divisive, J2.
"IMHO those you define as extreme leftists just want equal rights, liberty and justice for all not just the 1% kctim."
I'm not in the mood to discuss more 1% conspiracy theories, J2. Those I define as extreme leftists are those who "answer" facts, by screaming racist, sexist, hater etc… in hopes of silencing dissent.
"It benefits your extreme views and allows your propagandist to recruit those not really paying attention to your agenda."
If only that were true, my friend.
The fact is that our Constitution promotes, and our nations history shows, that individualism and limited government was the intention of our founding. Americans had become accustomed to our freedoms and our capitalist way of life.
Socialism as an economic theory requires a huge government and less individual rights and freedoms.
Right or wrong, or just laziness, when Americans speak of socialism, we are talking about oppressive government controlling the lives of individuals.
"If a person believes in freedom of choice, socialized medicine is bad, no matter how much money it might save.
Yep it is a problem but isn't that why we have a representative democracy?"
It is why we had a Republic with rules and guidelines that were to be respected. Believe me, if you guys got the Constitutional requirements to take away individual rights, instead of just reinterpreting things, I know I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
"I feel the same way about the bloated military and our spending billions on offensive as but I still pay taxes as I am in the minority."
I am also part of that minority, J2.
"Now if I was right on all issues all the time"
Individual rights and freedoms ARE the issue. If picking and choosing which ones to keep and not keep based on personal benefit is the price of civilization, it's already over.
"Just Now? I can only venture a guess kctim as I thought racism has been going on for some time."
Yes, but what is defined as racist today, was not defined as racist yesterday. Before, a person could argue against the AWB and then get an honest reply dealing with how or why it was needed. Today, argue against the AWB or gun control, and the reply you get is "you're a racist."
"The problem as I see it is it is more than a few with extreme beliefs that propagate this stuff."
No, there are not. The problem is that you have moved the bar on what you consider extreme. The 2nd Amendment now means radical. Traditional marriage now equals hate. Low taxes now equals racist. On and on.
"It is destructive and when people hear such nonsense from say Fox News they tend to believe it and it affects their judgement."
Give up the FOX excuse, J2. They only get like 2 million viewers and they are just one station.
"I would suggest it has a negative impact on the country as a whole."
Not any more than it under Bush, which is why I say we are worse off today than yesterday.
"Well we have some common ground kctim."
We would have a lot more if you left politics out of it.
"I mean by now Obama was supposed to have confiscated all our guns and made the country a Muslim theocracy but as we both know that hasn't happened."
Nothing but leftist partisan hyperbole.
Obama's own words from his past, and his actions up to today, all point to his desire for infringing on the 2nd Amendment. The fact that people use that against him is to be expected.
"Bit lets remember back in the days of Regan and GHWB conservatives were all up in arms demanding we get tough on crime, so be careful what you wish for."
No thanks. I would rather remember that our government is responsible for it and your sainted liberal politicians support it just as much as anybody else does.
"I would also suggest that the recent upsurge in easing the open carry and CCW laws we should expect the police to be a bit more jumpy and quicker to the trigger than before."
BS fear-mongering J2. People who open or conceal carry are NOT the cause of our problems with our ever growing police state. They are not the ones protesting, rioting and looting out some false sense of entitlement to that of others. They are not the ones who let the government take what it wants as long as it gives them something in return.
"The gun rights activists have been fearful since Obama has come into office of confiscation"
Well, saying that you would ban handguns, going after certain ammo and certain looking rifles, will cause people to believe that kind of thing. Especially when you are a liberal and liberal ran states are doing it.
"and conservatives at the state level have responded but by doing so have only made the problem worse."
We will just have to agree to disagree on that. I see nothing wrong with rights being returned to the people. If undoing leftist laws that infringe on our rights makes a politician look bad, so be it.Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2015 4:49 PM
KC, our liberal friends use the same tactic on gun control as they do with MMGW.
When no one except for government is allowed to have guns they claim we will be safer.
When they bankrupt the nation with silly nonsense about our ability to change climate we will all be safer.
Both of these issues are promoted by the left to attract huge gobs of money and to scare the uninformed into their political camp.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 27, 2015 5:17 PM
Limbaugh is part of the political game I mentioned. What I am talking about is how bad it is NOW on a personal level amongst the people.
"Mega dittos Rush me and my sister/wife love your show". DO you really think we can hear all the propaganda, the name calling, the myths, misinformation, half truths and outright lies parroted throughout the internet, the radio and the TV without it affecting us and without us parroting it especially as the volume and the reach of the "political game" increases?
Yeah, you laugh when they point out how terrible you guys treated President Bush, and I laugh when you guys try to ignore that and claim it's all about racism with Obama. Meh.
Kctim, I laugh because you guys are all butt hurt about GWB and act as if you all were so good to Clinton. The reason you use to justify your words and deeds ring hollow. They are without merit.
The simple fact is that you guys know how poisonous that word is and that people would rather do nothing than take the chance of being labeled a racist.
Were this true kctim wouldn't the problem be solved? If accusing someone of being a racist would cause them to stop the behavior it seems to me there would be nobody that would deserve to be called a racist.
Oh, I'm not thin skinned about it at all, I know why it's BS. I just like pointing out leftist hypocrisy.
Isn't that part of the problem kctim? You seem to forget what your own team is doing. Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Erickson, Drudge Breitbart, O'Reilly, Beck, Coulter and so make their living keeping you guys in insults and so when you mention hypocrisy I can only say you sure must know it when you see it.
Now, if we look at Obama's quote it is VERY clear that he is singling out those who are religious, support the 2nd Amendment and who favor legal immigration into our country. And then dismisses those principled beliefs as financial frustration?
Yes, but singling them out for what? Seems to me he was telling donors his opinion of why they vote repub. You make it sound like he was going door to door insulting them. He was specifically gearing towards those that have been left behind in the economy of today, those whose jobs went overseas while they supported the party of those that sent the jobs overseas. Are you sure you aren't thin skinned?
I'm not in the mood to discuss more 1% conspiracy theories, J2. Those I define as extreme leftists are those who "answer" facts, by screaming racist, sexist, hater etc… in hopes of silencing dissent.
I'll bet your not kctim, I would guess you would like to avoid that particular discussion as much as possible, but since it is a conservative principle it should remain on the table IMHO as it really isn't a conspiracy as you frame it but more of an attitude persistent amongst conservatives today. Do you notice the hypocrisy in your response kctim? You seem to be telling me those on the left pull out the race card yet you were the one to play it here. You seem to be using it like a crutch to justify the hyperbole coming from the conservative propaganda machine and your own arguments. I mean I didn't say squat about sexist or racist I simply stated what those of us moderates want for all of us not just the wealthy landowners.
No, there are not. The problem is that you have moved the bar on what you consider extreme. The 2nd Amendment now means radical. Traditional marriage now equals hate. Low taxes now equals racist. On and on.
Kctim, that is what is extreme, your framing of the issue. The exaggerations you use to tell me what I am saying. Traditional marriage equals hate!! No what equal hate is putting a petition on the ballot to kill homosexuals as is the case in CA. Discriminating against blacks or gays or immigrants could be hateful. WHy else would you want laws that allow you to discriminate, when a level playing field works for all Americans.
Give up the FOX excuse, J2. They only get like 2 million viewers and they are just one station.
Once again kctim you twist and turn to reframe the issue. Fox is but one source kctim, so look at the lit of right wing extremist above that peddle hatred and you will see the numbers are much more significant than you give these guys credit for.
Nothing but leftist partisan hyperbole.
I could go on but when I use links the comment often disappears. But you get my point hopefully as it isn't leftist but right wing hyperbole that has affected so many Americans in such a negative way.
No thanks. I would rather remember that our government is responsible for it and your sainted liberal politicians support it just as much as anybody else does.
I admire your ability to sweep reality out of the way and stick to your own myths kctim. When conservatives make something a political issue they use the power of propaganda to ensure they beat the opposition into compliance. Remember "soft on crime" or "liberal judges let them go free". Time to man up and admit the negative consequences of getting tough on crime.
BS fear-mongering J2. People who open or conceal carry are NOT the cause of our problems with our ever growing police state.
Of course it is fear mongering kctim, just because it has to do with the 2nd amendment, and you talk about hypocrisy! I didn't say they were the only problem but they are a problem. With so many more guns on the street the police have to be much more cautious after all isn't that why we wants more guns to keep the government at bay? Who do you think represents the government?
We will just have to agree to disagree on that. I see nothing wrong with rights being returned to the people.
The right to a police state kctim? Is this one of them state government , which meets my conservative beliefs. good Federal government, which doesn't, bad things?Posted by: j2t2 at March 27, 2015 8:59 PM
kctim, let this video serve as a little side bar, it's a video you might like, as it supports some of what you are saying.
Posted by: j2t2 at March 28, 2015 12:11 PM
j2, thanks for the video link to Bill Maher. He can be very funny and even hits the nail on the head from time to time. Some of his best monologues involve obama and ISIS.
Humor is best served when there is some truth in it. Perhaps that is why millions love to listen to Limbaugh.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 28, 2015 1:19 PM
Todays laugh.
A caller from Boston told the shows host; "In Boston the politicians are such thieves that they will steal a red-hot stove and come back for the smoke."
Posted by: Royal Flush at March 28, 2015 1:30 PM
Following is a link to the lefts greatest threat for the White House in 2016.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/ted-cruzs-electrifying-speech/Posted by: Royal Flush at March 28, 2015 5:44 PM
Royal Flush,
Read the comments to the article you posted. The wnd readers are merciless with the author because he was front and center in the Birther movement. Cruz was born in Canada. This author spent years denouncing Obama for supposedly not being born in HI, and now, with no question that Cruz was born in Canada, this Birther author suddenly has no problem whatsoever with the issue.
I don't like people like that. I don't respect them. I don't give their opinion any credence. Apparently neither do the people who comment on that site. Cruz is unquestionably entitled to run. But people like this article's author are the height of hypocrisy.Posted by: phx8 at March 28, 2015 7:21 PM
Why bother with reader comments? I listened to what the speaker had to say.
When I listen to an obama speech I don't bother reading reviews as I am able to judge for myself and need not rely upon others to form my opinion.
I would appreciate comments on what Cruz said.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 29, 2015 12:48 PM
Wow Royal I made it up to the interruption for the book advertisement and yes Cruz can make some cheer but then he isn't bound by truth or facts. I found my heels start coming together and my arm raising into the air as I listened to what he was saying about 6 job offers for each graduate so remindd me of what Adolph told the people of Germany in the '30's. I thought of the saying " when fascism comes to America it will be waving a flag and carrying a cross" as Ted Cruz could be the poster boy for fascism. I found myself wanting to shout "Sieg Heil" as Cruz told the listeners of the fairy tales on Obamacare and the non existent assault on religious liberty. I listened as he asked us to imagine millions of jobs from energy independence as 13,000 in Colorado are expected to lose their jobs due to the oil prices falling this year. I shouted for joy when he proposed a regressive but simple tax that forces the tax burden on the poor, as I recalled his fellow conservatives raising taxes on the middle class whilst cutting taxes on the wealthy over the years.
But alas I could stomach no more of the myths misinformation half truths and outright lies coming from Father Coughlin…er umm…I mean.. Cruz and after 7 minutes and the ridiculous advertisement in the middle of the speech I was done.Posted by: j2t2 at March 29, 2015 2:29 PM
Why not tell us what you REALLY think j2? LOLPosted by: Royal Flush at March 29, 2015 2:45 PM
Ah, Ted Cruz. He claims he is being forced by law to purchase Obamacare. That is NOT true. Cruz is lying.
He can purchase COBRA. Or, he can set up his own insurance through his committee for running for president. He can purchase insurance on the private market, rather than going through a state exchange. He did not sign up for private insurance for a simple reason- it is more expensive than insurance through the state exchanges. The fact is, Obamacare is a good deal.
The first day he had the opportunity to do it,Cruz announced he would sign up for Obamacare. He was not about to pay more for private insurance outside the exchanges.
And then he pretended he would "refuse" any subsidies. The fact is, his senatorial salary makes him ineligible for any Obamacare subsidies. He did not "refuse" anything. He was never offered.
What an ass! What a supremely hypocritical ass! And what an incredibly evil thing to do! He would deny coverage to literally millions of other Americans, urge young people not to sign up for coverage, which is grossly irresponsible, and he would vote to repeal Obamacare without offering replacement legislation. He would even lead a shutdown of the government over Obamacare.
But when it came to him and his family, he could not sign up for it fast enough.Posted by: phx8 at March 29, 2015 3:49 PM
To call Cruz a hypocrite for opposing obamacare and receive health insurance through it is akin to saying that it's hypocritical for a person who wants lower taxes to pay the amount that they legally owe, or that somebody who wants a reduced federal role in education sends their kids to a public school that receives federal funding.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 29, 2015 4:20 PM
No, it is not the same at all. A person is legally obligated to pay taxes. A person is legally obligated to provide an education to their kids, whether it is public, private, or through home schooling.
Cruz was NOT legally obligated to purchase Obamacare. As I said, he could have purchased COBRA, set up his own through his organization, or bought private insurance.
He CHOSE to go with Obamacare because it is the best deal- BETTER than private health insurance.Posted by: phx8 at March 29, 2015 4:26 PM
It certainly is the same. obamacare is cheaper for some, much more expensive for others, and is very restrictive for everyone.
Why do you suppose obama had to grant all those exemptions and delays?Posted by: Royal Flush at March 29, 2015 4:59 PM
Obamacare might be cheaper for some. It might be more expensive for others, but only if they had substandard insurance in the first place. It would be difficult to name a way in which it could be any more restrictive than private insurance.
Obama granted exemptions and delays to improve the implementation of the program. The idea was to make it work, not make it fail, and in a few cases, delays helped the process proceed more successfully. In any event, the delays only applied to companies with more than 50 employees that did not already offer coverage to their employees, and that amounted to a paltry total of about 4% of all large companies.
These attempts to change the subject avoid the basic fact:
When Cruz had the chance, he went for Obamacare like a shot out of a cannon. He did so literally the first day he had the opportunity. Cruz did NOT buy COBRA. Cruz did NOT buy private insurance. Cruz did NOT set up his own insurance through his political organization. Instead, he CHOSE to go with Obamacare because it was the best deal out there.Posted by: phx8 at March 29, 2015 10:44 PM
To call Cruz a hypocrite for opposing obamacare and receive health insurance through it
SO let me get this straight Royal, in the first three and one half minutes of this speech you linked to, Cruz asked us to imagine all the conservatives voting their values and standing up for liberty. He then called out the economic stagnation he imagines the country is in due to…. wait for it… wait for it……Obamacare! The same Obamacare that was signed into law 5 years ago. The same Obama care that he has imagined left millions jobless, his words, without doctors, without health insurance and burdened with skyrocketing health insurance costs! The same Ted Cruz who imagines a new president in 2017 that will repeal every word of Obamacare.
Then the very same Ted Cruz, who one is a pathological liar or two a man who has no values and is a pathological liar, goes out and buys into Obamacare. Ted who imagines the loss of a million American jobs from Obamacare goes out and buys it! Ted who tells his audience it has caused skyrocketing health insurance cost has went out and purchased Obamacare! Ted who tells the mindless idiots who listen to him he will repeal every word of it if elected in 2017 went out and bought into Obamacare! Hell he had other choices, many other choices and he immediately went into Obamacare and purchased health insurance but it isn't hypocrisy!! Really!
IMHO on the hypocrisy meter Teds purchasing health insurance thru Obamacare pegs the meter, past irritating hypocrisy, past blatant hypocrisy, past monumental hypocrisy, all the way to gross and disgusting hypocrisy.
Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2015 1:36 PM
BTW Royal just in case you take offense as to Ted being called a liar here issome truth that make his speech that much more despicable.
I wonder how people who are so quick to find fault with what the president says anytime he speaks has no problem with the complete and total hypocrisy of Ted Cruz. Can you explain that to me?Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2015 1:53 PM
Hypocrisy…let me count the ways!
Before Obamacare was passed, Obama said: "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people… If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Also before Obamacare was passed, Obama said: "Here is a guarantee that I've made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance."
Indiana's religious freedom law drew an attack Sunday from the White House even though Indiana Republicans say President Obama voted in favor of similar legislation as an Illinois state senator in 1998.
Regarding the Keystone Pipeline the president stated that he was at the mercy of "established executive branch procedures," a claim that deserves widespread derision considering…this is the same president who announced three months ago that he'd rewrite the law unilaterally to expand amnesty to millions of people who emigrated illegally to the US.
Bibi Netanyahu was criticized by obama for what he called inflammatory comments on Israel's election day warning that Arab voters were "heading to the polls in droves." But even after four and a half years, there has been no apology from Barack Obama for his inflammatory remarks just before the 2010 election, when he exhorted Latinos to generate an "upsurge in voting" in order to "punish our enemies and … reward our friends." When Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei declaims "Death to America!," as he did in a speech last week, an unruffled White House brushes it off as "intended for a domestic political audience."
On November 15, 2007, in Las Vegas, Nevada, Obama said that lobbyists "… will not work in my White House."
However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration.
obama nominated Timothy geithner, a six-time tax cheater, to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws
Obama signed a "stimulus" bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives. Prior to signing this bill, Obama had said, "when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Senator obama railed against the increase in our national debt under President Bush. Yet, the national debt increased more during Obama's first three years and two months than it did during all eight years of George W. Bush's presidency.
In December 2011, Obama signed a bill that gave the U.S. government the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without any charges being filed or any trial taking place.
In 2011, after Boeing had hired 1,000 new employees to work at its new factory in South Carolina, the Obama administration ordered Boeing to shut down the factory, because the factory was non-union.
During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Obama violated the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by illegally treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors.
In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals.
Although Obama had made a campaign promise to have all of the health care reform negotiations broadcast on C-SPAN, he broke that promise after he was elected. The secrecy of these negotiations was so strong that U.S. Congresswoman and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Before Obamacare was passed, Obama promised "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."
Although Obama had promised to have "the most sweeping ethics reform in history," and had often criticized the role of money in politics, the truth is that after he was elected, he gave administration jobs to more than half of his 47 biggest fundraisers.
In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama's dozens of czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)expressed a similar concern in September 2009.
These are just a sampling of obama's hypocrisy for the entertainment of my liberal friends.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 2:41 PM
RF, President Obama is not running for a third term, much as I wish he could (he already did that twice and won both times). Ted Cruz has thrown his hat in the ring for the Republican Nomination for President.
What is the problem of addressing Cruz's disingenuous behavior regarding the PPACA and his recent actions of enrolling for health insurance through one of the exchanges created by the PPACA? Do you simply find it easier to yell out "But you guys do it too!!!" for everything? What is wrong with righties having to defend the crazy statements and even crazier actions of their candidates? I don't think you can defend them and that is why you take the tack you do.
By the way I am certain that if President Obama has broken any laws there would be a line of Republican State AG's ready to bring charges against him, there isn't any.
During this long primary and general election process how many times will you say "OK, that's bad but your guy did it too" when there is no comparison to what they are doing? I am uncertain why you would consider the Republicans have any hope in seeing their candidate become elected President with that kind of political attitude.Posted by: Speak4all at March 30, 2015 3:23 PM
Speak…you make no sense.
I addressed the so call "hypocrisy" committed by Ted Cruz with a short list of actual hypocrisy by obama.
I understand the fear and loathing the left has for a real conservative who is seeking the nomination of the Republican Party. A man who calls for obeying the Constitution, promotes freedom and liberty, and who will make Hillary appear incompetent in any debates is obviously someone who must be demeaned and derided.
Cruz has a tough road ahead as the party wants to crown the next Bush in line. We recall how Reagan was treated by the party before he won his first term. Now, the party lionizes Reagan but will trash the candidate who is closer to Reagan than any other candidate who might announce.
Cruz may not get the nomination, only time will tell. As a conservative I like the man. I don't need any Twits telling me why I shouldn't like him.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 4:10 PM
RF's response is a pretty classic example of attempting to change the subject by accusing Obama of various items, as if they were somehow the same thing. Conservatives are incapable of acknowledging wrongdoing in their leaders. This is how they end up voting for Bush.
You want to equate mistakes made by Obama with hypocrisy, but being wrong is not the same as being hypocritical. For example, you cite the example of Obama saying everyone could keep their insurance. Obama was wrong, and when he realized he was wrong, he apologized, and did what he could to make the situation better.
In the next example, conservatives are attempting to equate laws from the 1990's with the recent law enacted in Indiana. The laws are different. I realize Limbaugh and FOX are trying to say they are the same, but that is simply false. I can provide links, but rather than listen to a liberal, why don't you spend a little time looking it up. It is a matter of record.Posted by: phx8 at March 30, 2015 4:19 PM
"change the subject"
Hardly, I was addressing hypocrisy by the leader of the left since it seems to be such a big deal with the left over a single action by Ted Cruz.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 4:29 PM
RF, how about addressing what Ted Cruz did and not what President Obama did, that's all. Notice the title of the post has the name "Ted Cruz" and not Barack Obama in it. If this is the normal action that we are going to see from the Republicans for this primary process this ride in the clown car is going to be hilarious. Of course I won't be going along for the ride and will just observe and disbelieve. Red noses and big shoes for everyone that participates. I doubt John Huntsman will even make an attempt this time as his sensible approach to politics is nothing the Republicans can fathom presently and he learned that the last time.Posted by: Speak4all at March 30, 2015 4:29 PM
Speak, would you care to compare what Ted Cruz has accomplished with obama's accomplishments at the same point in their educational, employment, and political career? We already have a leftie clown in the White House so there is a precedent.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 4:36 PM
My neoliberal friends would like to call what Ted Cruz did for himself and his family hypocrisy; and dismiss all the hypocritical acts obama has done as president.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 4:41 PM
RF, OK we get it. You can't defend what Ted Cruz said about the PPACA and then turned around and took advantage of it, you think it was disingenuous as we do but are willing to look the other way, got it. No I do not care to compare Ted Cruz to President Obama, that would be really unfair to Senator Cruz as his accomplishments have been primarily to shut down the government over a squabble about an initiative that he has now taken advantage of, and reading Dr. Seuss to everybody. I still get a chuckle from that. The story is about a child that does not like and will not eat green eggs and ham, much like Senator Cruz acted about the PPACA. But just as in the book Senator Cruz ends up using the PPACA and likes it for that is what he chose to do, nobody forced him. Much like the child that tried the green eggs and ham and kind of liked it too. How prescient of the junior Senator from Texas in a funny kind of weird way, don't you think? On the other hand President Obama's accomplishments, besides being elected to be President of the USA twice would take up to much space on this blog and you could just use google to get that. President Obama's accomplishments.Posted by: Speak4all at March 30, 2015 5:09 PM
Silly Twit…read carefully. "Speak, would you care to compare what Ted Cruz has accomplished with obama's accomplishments at the same point in their educational, employment, and political career?Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 5:19 PM
Silly twit…read carefully, who cares besides you to support your nonsense. Tell us more about your "Green Eggs and Ham" master, you screwball. You know I have heard that Ted Cruz has been called a very smart man but I also have heard that if you doubt that you can just ask him and he will tell you that he is "the very smartest man". Problem is, he just doesn't have any common sense as is evident by his political decisions and aspirations.Posted by: Speak4all at March 30, 2015 5:35 PM
LOL…when all else fails for a leftie and they have no facts or logical arguments left, they wipe the "egg" from their face, and change the subject.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 5:41 PM
RF, you are the one changing the subject, just as phx8 has pointed out to you. The name in the title of the post is "Ted Cruz", let's just try to stick with a discussion regarding him. We know you will be unable to do that because you know what he did was dishonest and disingenuous besides being a pernicious imbecile that takes great pride in denying other people health care insurance in exactly the same way he is obtaining it for himself. You righties have lost all sensibility and are now just mumbling something about President Obama that makes no sense to thinking people. Please try to get some help we need your conservative thoughts but not your conservative fantasies.Posted by: Speak4all at March 30, 2015 5:49 PM
Speak would like us to believe that he reads Dr. Seuss for his grandkids benefit. Perhaps that is true, and perhaps they read it to him for his further education.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 5:50 PM
RF, your ability to attempt insults is as insufficient as your ability to defend Senator Cruz. You know for an older gentleman you seem to posses the temper of a two year old?Posted by: Speak4all at March 30, 2015 5:52 PM
I suspect my leftie friends will be visiting a gastroenterologist when obama leaves office to have their stomachs pumped to remove all the bullshit they have swallowed.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 5:56 PM
I addressed the so call "hypocrisy" committed by Ted Cruz with a short list of actual hypocrisy by obama.
Royal if you are going to call names such as twit you should at the least have a reasonable and logical response to the issue. But you didn't, in fact you didn't come close. Instead you gave us what you think are hypocritical actions of Obama and then start insulting and name calling. Certainly you are more intelligent that that, aren't you? You changed the subject by bringing Obama into the picture as if anything he says would change ones opinion on the words and deeds of Ted Cruz. You were called on it but then resorted to name calling and pointing the finger at others for your lapse in rational thinking.
You even have the temerity to say you addressed the "so called hypocrisy" of ted cruz, but instead of providing anything intelligent as a response that would lead one to believe you may have a point you instead side step the issue by injecting Obama into the issue. You didn't provide anything at all that would cause us to say ted cruz isn't a hypocrite. It seems you cannot bring yourself to the point of admitting he was very hypocritical in this instance but instead defend his hypocrisy by becoming a hypocrite yourself.
Are you really that f**king stupid to believe you actually made some kind of point here Royal? Man up Royal, do the right thing and apologize for these ignorant comments of yours or we will be left to assume you have no integrity and no credibility.
I understand the fear and loathing the left has for a real conservative who is seeking the nomination of the Republican Party.
I hope my explanation in comment 390887 led you to the reason for the fear I have should ted cruz become president. Ya see I can't see any difference between conservatism as practiced today and fascism. Ted has the power to fool his audience because he is not bound by truth or facts and has proven to not be a man of his word.
A man who calls for obeying the Constitution, promotes freedom and liberty, and who will make Hillary appear incompetent in any debates is obviously someone who must be demeaned and derided.
Once again when someone is not bound by truth and has the talent of a pathological lair I wonder how you come to the conclusion he would obey the Constitution or that he would defend our freedom and liberty. To make matters worse you tell us in comment #390866 about the requirements for the candidate of your choice and I fail to see flaming hypocrite on that list. Yet you say cruz is a true conservative so does that mean hypocrisy is a conservative principle.Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2015 6:42 PM
j2, does obamacare cover stomach pumping?Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 6:55 PM
One just has to admire the brilliance of obama and Kerry. I feel much safer now.
"So in addition to being able to maintain their rogue nuclear program's infrastructure, keep thousands of centrifuges spinning, do nothing to renounce or scale back their support for terrorism/regional power plays/human rights abuses, or give up their long-range missile program, Tehran has insisted that they also be allowed to keep their fortified underground enrichment bunkers in operation, and is now backing away from a previously-stated willingness to remove enriched uranium from the country. (In addition to asking that sanctions relief begin immediately, based upon no evidence of compliance). The US and partners reportedly acceded to the former late-breaking demand, and are seeking ways to accommodate the latter. Remember that tough sanctions forced Iran to the bargaining table in the first place, with their economy in tatters. This deal would lift those sanctions — with restrictions on the regime beginning to phase out after just ten years."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/03/30/whos-up-for-another-eleventh-hour-iranian-demand-n1978250Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 7:31 PM
j2, does obamacare cover stomach pumping?
Why don't you ask ted cruz, Royal?Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2015 7:45 PM
Lefties are the experts on Curleycare.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 7:48 PM
Correction: MoeLarryCurleycare. obama, pelosi, reidPosted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 7:50 PM
Lefties are the experts on Curleycare. Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2015 7:48 PM
Oh you wanted factual truthful information Royal? My bad, I thought you wanted the conservative myths and misinformation ted cruz spoutsPosted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2015 8:10 PM
And all R.F. gets is the lies of the left!!!!!!
KAP, well then why not support him with an intelligent comment? I mean after all he did ask about MoeLarryCurleycare and since conservatives know all about it you should be able to come to the table with something other than the drivel you wasted our time with. Enlighten us with specifics KAP, Defend cruz without resorting to "well they do it to so it must not be hypocrisy". Prove his nonsense in the first 3.5 minutes of his speech is factual.
Or show us these lies you claim we have written and debunk them. Anything intelligent. But to whine like a baby with gibberish such as "And all R.F. gets is the lies of the left!!" with nothing to back it up makes you look as foolish as Royal in the previous comments. And KAP that is pretty foolish.
j2, if you had read the very first comment on this thread you would have seen that I put Cruz in the very same inexperienced category as Obama. So if you think I will defend him you are sadly mistaken. As far as lies j2 I refer you to comment #390896 in which R.F. listed some of the Obama lies that people like you are foolish enough to defend. What is truly foolish j2 is defending a lying politician and then having the GAUL to say someone else is foolish.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 31, 2015 12:05 AM
KAP, Once again you fall for illogical nonsense in an attempt to make your point. In doing so your reasoning becomes flawed and your argument moot. Let me explain. First of all I didn't defend the comments made by Royal. I simply refused to fall into the foolishness that somehow by telling us of what Royal thought to be examples of hypocrisy by Obama exonerated ted cruz from involvement in his own hypocrisy. In this case you guys would ask us believe cruz by word and deed did not cross the threshold of hypocrisy because Obama said something that may or may not be hypocritical. I know foolish, right? But that is what you are saying. Tu Quoque, my friend.
I'm asking you to stop the nonsense, the name calling and by using logic and reasoning explain why my opinion of his words and deeds are wrong.Posted by: j2t2 at March 31, 2015 10:11 AM
j2, I don't expect you to believe anything Cruz says, as I said I believe he is to inexperienced to be President as was Obama. j2 you haven't defend the lies in this thread but would you like us to go into the archives and produce evidence that you have defended those lies? Now as far as Cruz goes I know little or nothing about the man and believe if someone with some political experience gets into the field he/she will make Cruz look like a fool. What I am looking for in a candidate is EXPERIENCE we have had enough of the inexperienced blundering of the current W.H. resident and his incompetent staff.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 31, 2015 11:06 AM
I put Cruz in the very same inexperienced category as Obama
Obama worked with Tom Coburn to pass the Coburn-Obama Transparency and Accountability Act in 2006. Obama also worked with Dick Lugar to pass the Obama-Lugar Act, which built upon the earlier Nunn-Lugar Act in order to limit the proliferation of former Soviet Weaponry.
Remind me again, what exactly has Ted Cruz done? I mean, other than blow hot air and shutdown the government.
I'm asking you to stop the nonsense, the name calling and by using logic and reasoning explain why my opinion of his words and deeds are wrong.Unfortunately, you aren't going to have this request fulfilled. The Right is in an utter state of panic right now. They are beginning the process of coming to terms with their bankrupt ideology. Cruz, Carson and all the other Tea Party darlings are complete clowns and deep down inside, RF and KAP know it. The GOP's best hope right now is that the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by nominating Hillary Clinton. We have so many well-qualified governors in this country who are much better suited for taking the reigns of Obama's legacy. Whereas, with Clinton we get a pair of people who play by their own rules instead of the ones the rest of us follow. The most recent scandal with the State Dept emails is emblematic of that haughtiness. Posted by: Warren Porter at March 31, 2015 11:12 AM
Warren, You don't have to look very far for me to say that Cruz is not Presidential material. As far as experience goes for Obama all you have to do is look at the Middle East and how it is falling apart. Saudi Arabia doesn't trust him Israel doesn't trust him and I don't really think any of he European leaders trust him. As far as the examples of Obama's achievements the first one is a real laugh. As far as candidates go a Cruz/Clinton contest would mean DOOM for this country.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 31, 2015 11:26 AM
As far as experience goes for Obama all you have to do is look at the Middle East and how it is falling apart. Saudi Arabia doesn't trust him Israel doesn't trust him and I don't really think any of he European leaders trust him.
Things could be better in the ME, but overall the situation isn't too bad given the circumstances. Netanyahu is an ass and there's not going to be any change on that front anytime soon. Iran & the Sunni Gulf States are fighting proxy wars in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, but the strategic consequences are very little. The only potential I see for bad news is if the GOP blows up the nuclear negotiations with Iran, which would open the door for Russia and China to lift their sanctions without any concessions from the Iranians.Posted by: Warren Porter at March 31, 2015 2:11 PM
Warren, If you think Iran is going to abide by any agreement with any one of those who are negotiating with them you are seriously mistaken. They want to continue what they are doing no matter what the agreement is. All. they want is the sanctions lifted and to go about their merry business of enriching uranium. If you think otherwise TSK TSK TSK.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 31, 2015 2:26 PM
As I wrote above, individual behavior, what one does for himself and family, is distinct from political belief and political actions.
A billionaire taking tax breaks isn't a hypocrite for wanting higher rates and more social services.
Al Gore, the climate activist who flies around the world dumping huge amounts of carbon into the air, is not a hypocrite.
A rich liberal who sends his kids to private schools but wants more money for public education isn't a hypocrite.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 31, 2015 5:15 PM
Posted by: j2t2 at March 31, 2015 5:27 PM
The conservatives are dangerous when scared Warren. I would agree they own the political landscape in this country and realize they really don't have a plan and seem to be panicked because Obama hasn't rolled over as he did in the early days of his administration.They are beginning the process of coming to terms with their bankrupt ideology.
While it has been obvious for many year to many of us it does seem the more moderate of the repubs are wising up. The problem is they are not accountable for their actions. The media, other than small websites, gives them a pass so as not to be labelled MSM or anti conservative or worse liberal. Their voters are completely hoodwinked and still to this day buy into anything they are told.Cruz, Carson and all the other Tea Party darlings are complete clowns and deep down inside, RF and KAP know it.
KAP and Royal want to pull the ladder up behind them as their ideology "dooms" America as KAP says. I mean cruz and Clinton are just different degrees of conservatism. Look at how they still insist upon blaming Obama for the tea party problem.
Those who have bought into the tea party propaganda in the past seem to like the clowns because they believe the government is a circus. In this thread Royal tells us Obama is hypocritical because he "railed" against the debt until he was president then spent more in the first 3 years than GWB did in 8 years. He completely forgot the condition of the economy when Obama came into officer and what was necessary to stop the collapse as if Obama caused the collapse himself.
The clowns just aren't held accountable for what they have done as is the case with cruz and his Obamacare hypocrisy. They always have an excuse and shout down any truth or facts that they disagree with.
The Twitters on WB all seem to agree on what constitutes hypocrisy. What the left does is called expediency, not the "H" word.
Conservatives call for balancing our national budget and following the provisions in our Constitution as the Founders wrote it. The left calls this propaganda and clownish.
They hail Larry/Moe/Curley as saviors of the nation for continuing to add to our debt and circumventing the Constitution. Many on the left prefer someone even more liberal than Hillary to exponentially add to what the Clown-in-Chief has already done.
When liberal policies fail to produce desired results their fall-back position is almost always to blame Conservatives for blocking additional funding.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 31, 2015 5:45 PM
RF, I feel kind of sorry for you. Your argument will be eviscerated in short time. You postulate very ridiculous thoughts that contradict any logic. Have fun.Posted by: Speak4all at March 31, 2015 5:51 PM
Can't wait for the Twitters Speak.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 31, 2015 5:56 PM
I am sure my friends have noticed that common sense and logic is almost always the first casualty of new liberal outrages.Posted by: Royal Flush at March 31, 2015 6:19 PM
j2, For the last time Cruz would make a terrible president!!!!!!! Learn how to read. Your girl Hillary belongs in prison not the W.H.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 31, 2015 6:52 PM
I would like to remind Rich that:
In 1992: President George H.W. Bush ran as a moderate and lost.
In 1996: Senator Dole ran as a moderate, and lost.
In 2000: George W Bush ran as a conservative. He won. (Although he didn't govern as conservative.)
In 2008: Senator McCain ran as a moderate, and lost.
In 2012: Romney is nominated, over a more conservative Rick Santorum, and lost.
Conservatives call for balancing our national budget
Yes they tell us they want to balance the budget on the backs of the social safety net while increasing the military budget. They would prefer our social safety net be more along the lines of China or the Philippines than other developed countries.
"The United States has one of the least extensive social safety nets in the developed world, reducing both relative poverty and absolute poverty by considerably less than the mean for wealthy nations.[225][226][227][228] The living standards for the poor in the United States are also among the highest in the world.[197][not in citation given] However, over the last three decades the poor in America have been incarcerated at a much higher rate than their counterparts in other developed nations, with penal confinement being "commonplace for poor men of working age."[229] Some scholars contend that the shift to neoliberal social and economic policies starting in the late 1970s has expanded the penal state, retrenched the social welfare state, deregulated the economy and criminalized poverty, ultimately "transforming what it means to be poor in America."[230][231][232]"
and following the provisions in our Constitution as the Founders wrote it.Posted by: j2t2 at April 1, 2015 9:56 AM
That I believe, sure explains why they treat minorities and women the way they do doesn't it. To hell with the amendments its all about rich white landowners right Royal.The left calls this propaganda and clownish.Well I can only speak for myself but in this case you are right it would be clownish were it not the truth. But it isn't propaganda however conservatives use a mixture of myths misinformation half truths and outright lies as propaganda to further their cause.They hail Larry/Moe/Curley as saviors of the nation for continuing to add to our debt and circumventing the Constitution.
And of course Royal you immediately provide us with the myths misinformation half truths and outright lies that corroborates what I have said.Many on the left prefer someone even more liberal than Hillary to exponentially add to what the Clown-in-Chief has already done.
While Royal prefers we keep the Benito's and Adolph's currently in charge in Congress. Just think Royal with ted as president we could add to the list-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fascist_movementsWhen liberal policies fail to produce desired results their fall-back position is almost always to blame Conservatives for blocking additional funding.
Of course these days its more along the lines of conservatives declaring the policies, such as Obamacare, to be all screwed up and then trying to repeal or defund it. This despite all evidence to the contrary, that it works to the point ted cruz has signed up for health insurance using Obamacare.
YawnPosted by: Royal Flush at April 1, 2015 2:47 PM
j2, For the last time Cruz would make a terrible president!!!!!!!
Well okkkkkkkay then, my guess is you are right.
Learn how to read.
But KAP a person can take just so much myths misinformation half truths and outright lies.
Your girl Hillary belongs in prison not the W.H.
But she isn't poor KAP. I wonder if you guys heard it wrong when LBJ wanted a war on poverty and your team started a war on the poor. Besides don't you want to see a run off between the Clinton's and the Bushes?
I suggest, j2, that you do take a reading course there was no where, where I even suggested Hillary was poor. What has that got to do with her deserving prison rather than the W.H.??? If you are trying to be funny j2 you are a failure. Yes j2 a person can only take so much of myths, misinformation and outright lies and half truths so will you stop doing it and tell your buddy Barack to do the same.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 1, 2015 7:33 PM
KAP, it seems I may not be the only one that needs a reading course, a reading comprehension course at that. Perhaps if you had read my previous comment the reference to poor in connection with prison should be relatively clear.
Of course I don't know what you read but I never suggested you said anything about Hillary being poor. Are you sure you can comprehend what you read?
Humor, KAP, I would never attempt conservative humor its way to vile and degrading for me.Posted by: j2t2 at April 1, 2015 10:48 PM
"But she isn't poor KAP. I wonder if you guys heard it wrong when LBJ wanted a war on poverty and your team started a war on the poor. Beside don't you want to see a runoff between the Clinton's and the Bushes." This is what you wrote j2 word for word. Now I want you to look at the first 5 words. Now I want to know how you got this from me saying "Hillary needs to be in prison not in the W.H." and all that other rubbish you wrote along with it. Who is my team j2? NEWS FLASH j2 I have no team. What does the war on poverty have to do with Hillary going to prison? You write a bunch of BS that has nothing to do with the comments I write and you have the GAUL to say I need a reading comprehension course? Try again j2!
KAP are you suggesting that your comment "Hillary needs to be in prison not in the W.H." wasn't in reference to my previous comment? Comment #390937 read it and perhaps it will clear things up for you.
Posted by: j2t2 at April 2, 2015 1:17 AM
j2 , I'll put this in simple form "NO" to your comment 390397.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 2, 2015 10:07 AM
j2, How did you come to think that comment I made that "Hillary needs to be in Prison not the W.H." had anything to do with the comment 390937? Is that a liberal thing to read into something that doesn't pertain to the comment? Or is it the liberal bait and switch? Whatever it is j2 your game isn't going to work.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 2, 2015 12:22 PM
j2, How did you come to think that comment I made that "Hillary needs to be in Prison not the W.H." had anything to do with the comment 390937?
from comment 390937
" However, over the last three decades the poor in America have been incarcerated at a much higher rate than their counterparts in other developed nations, with penal confinement being "commonplace for poor men of working age."[229] Some scholars contend that the shift to neoliberal social and economic policies starting in the late 1970s has expanded the penal state, retrenched the social welfare state, deregulated the economy and criminalized poverty,"
Which as you know KAP was in response to Royal's comment that conservatives are balancing the budget. Maybe it was incarcerated and/or penal confinement and/or penal state and/or criminalized poverty that threw you off.
Is that a liberal thing to read into something that doesn't pertain to the comment? Or is it the liberal bait and switch? Whatever it is j2 your game isn't going to work.
KAP you seem to be seeing some sort of a conspiracy where none exists, liberal or otherwise. I mean why on earth would you think Hillary Clinton should be in jail when all she has done is serve her country.Posted by: j2t2 at April 2, 2015 12:49 PM
j2 Hillary is far from being poor. So I don't know what your comment has to do with Hillary. What does balancing the budget have to do with Hillary belonging in prison? What exactly has she done for this country? She served but her service is far from exemplary.Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 2, 2015 1:06 PM
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
'Perhaps the most British Italian you will ever possibly meet'. That's how Alice Bisi, aka Birthh, defines herself on her Facebook page. The twenty-year-old Italian songwriter will be playing in London on May, 9 at Hoxton Square Bar and Kitchen.
Your first album, released in March 2016, is 'Born in the woods' and your project is called Birthh. Can you explain me what's behind these names?
First of all, I like the world itself, birth. The idea of birth is something that always has fascinated me. It is something strange, because we all know that we were born. But if we have to go back in the past and find where everything began then it's more complicated. As far as the album concerns, nature has always fascinated me too. Nature is something very irrational and it difficult for us human beings to give a sense to it. But at the same time, it gives an order to everything.
Where does the idea of the album come from?
It was born by chance. I was at high school during my third-fourth year but I've always written songs since I was a child. During my last year at school I had some songs and so I thought about the album.
How did you get so close to music?
I started playing classic guitar when I was about 6 years old. My dad used to play for fun in a band and my mum used to sing in a polyphonic chorus.
Your music sounds very international, it may remind artists such as Daughter or Torres. Do you have any particular influence?
As far as the album concerns, there are many influences and these come from the fact I listen to lots of music and this may influence the arrangements. Some electronic music I listen to inspired for sure my work, such as Son Lux, Jon Hopkins and Trentemøller. If we talk about the writing side, I have never followed anybody's style, but for sure other artists influenced me in this sense, such as Bon Iver.
What does it mean writing for you?
Writing this album in particular, helped me to go beyond some episodes in my life, but I wouldn't say that music is my safety valve. However, when I write, I talk about things that are important to me.
All the songs in this album are in English. Why did you choose that instead of Italian?
I have always written songs in English and I like it. I am not so good at writing in Italian, I think, it is matter of training. I tend to stick to English because it is a language that can reach everybody. Sometimes listening to some music helped me to feel less alone and so I think that if I write in English I can share my feelings with more people.
There are two other people in this project, Lorenzo and Massimo. How did you meet them?
We have been friends for ages. I had some songs and I liked the idea of sharing this with other people. They really helped me in the studio and supported me. Also, during the live shows, it is completely different playing with other musicians. It is the first time I play with a band. When I played just by myself on the stage there are no shortcuts, but when it is the three of us it doesn't matter if you have one or thousands people in front of you, you can have fun all together. Both of them leave their mark in the music and I like it.
You already played in many festivals all around Europe and in the US as well. Have you ever thought about having such a success?
I wasn't expecting all the nice things that happened to me with this album. There is still lot of work to do and so I want to keep on going. I try to do as many things as possible and not to stop or focus on a specific issue. I think I grew up as an artist and I really look forward to making people listen to new things I have.
So you are very busy. What do you do in your spare time (except playing)?
I don't have spare time anymore. When I do have, I want to sleep! I try to study music at DAMS (the Arts, music and performance faculty). It is quite hard at the moment, but I will make it, sooner or later I will get a degree.
Do you have any new projects?
I am often touring so writing is complicated, but I was exactly working on a song when you rang me! I have a few projects that are not too much related to Birthh too.
You can get your ticket for Birthh's concert in London here.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Book Tee Times
Tee Times
Input Score
18 hole
Suggest Edit
The 18-hole "Falcon Lake Golf Course" at the Falcon Lake Golf Course facility in Falcon Beach, Manitoba features all the hallmarks of Manitoba golf. Falcon Lake Golf Course opened in 1958. Bud Edwards manages the course as the Manager/Golf Professional.
Falcon Lake Golf Course
Golf Only facility
10 tees driving range
18 regulation holes
No recent major awards have been noted.
No local tournaments listed for this course. Add a tournament here.