TexasCHLforum.com

If the GOP caves on the debt ceiling talks, and it's beginning to look likely, it may not make any difference who runs on the Republican side.

bnc wrote:

dicion wrote:Well, if Bachmann wasn't a non-candidate before, she just signed her campaign's death knell.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/83979/b ... -president" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Never underestimate the Republicans' ability to shoot themselves in the foot. Luckily for them it is only figuratively.

Michelle Bachmann wrote:Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

Another disgraceful shameful and false claim from Bachmann.

loadedliberal wrote:

dicion wrote:Well, if Bachmann wasn't a non-candidate before, she just signed her campaign's death knell.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/83979/b ... -president" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is why I have such a problem with so many in the GOP they say they are for small government but they are really for "their" version of big government. I am leaning heavily toward Gary Johnson, but I do not think he stands a chance.

I had to delete my initial reply because it went off on a crazy rant. Will we ever have a (viable) candidate that really believes in a government that leaves citizens alone to live their own lives and also leaves the free market alone to do what it needs to do? Why does it always have to come down to one candidate who represents Keynesian (redistributive) economics and another candidate who represents the modern christian church's version of Sharia Law?

I just want a governement that keeps the roads/bridges in good shape, runs a strong military, puts those who victimize others away, and...............well, that's about all I want the government to do, we Americans can handle the rest.

canvasbck wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

dicion wrote:Well, if Bachmann wasn't a non-candidate before, she just signed her campaign's death knell.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/83979/b ... -president" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is why I have such a problem with so many in the GOP they say they are for small government but they are really for "their" version of big government. I am leaning heavily toward Gary Johnson, but I do not think he stands a chance.

I had to delete my initial reply because it went off on a crazy rant. Will we ever have a (viable) candidate that really believes in a government that leaves citizens alone to live their own lives and also leaves the free market alone to do what it needs to do? Why does it always have to come down to one candidate who represents Keynesian (redistributive) economics and another candidate who represents the modern christian church's version of Sharia Law?

I just want a governement that keeps the roads/bridges in good shape, runs a strong military, puts those who victimize others away, and...............well, that's about all I want the government to do, we Americans can handle the rest.

100 percent I agree, now lets find that candidate and get something done.

I'm disappointed in Bachmann and the fools that put together that list of pledges.

canvasbck wrote:
I just want a governement that keeps the roads/bridges in good shape, runs a strong military, puts those who victimize others away, and...............well, that's about all I want the government to do, we Americans can handle the rest.

Precisely! Why is that so hard for everyone to understand?

They understand but are corrupted by power. The founding fathers saw the same thing in their time and knew the solution but Americans have forgotten over the centuries. The 4th is now about BBQ, fireworks and sales, not standing up to government officials who go too far.

74novaman wrote:

Generic Republican Candidate 46%, Obama 42%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ial_ballot

Okay, I found the outfit, now how do I get into the primaries?

sjfcontrol wrote:If the GOP caves on the debt ceiling talks, and it's beginning to look likely, it may not make any difference who runs on the Republican side.

If they cave in, they deserve to lose in 2012. Not only POTUS but a bunch of seats in congress too.

According to Steve Moore, if the debt ceiling is not raised, the US will have enough money to
1. pay the interest on the debt,
2. pay all social security, Medicare and Medicaid obligations,
3. pay all federal government salaries, including military salaries, and
4. have 7 billion dollars left over.

If they can't do a budget within the current debt ceiling, they need to lose their cushy government jobs.

For what it's worth ...

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138544211 ... c=fb&cc=fp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...historically, the people in power carry their moral values (or lack of) with them...from the Founding Fathers and first presidents through the candidates today...personally, I'd rather have her values in place in law than Clinton's...but I understand that we as a nation don't want our government legislating our morality...at least that's the catch phrase we hear...
...ALL governments legislate morality...BOTH parties...we, as voters, have to decide what's important to us, and what's good for the country and our children and grandchildren...and vote for the people and laws that we feel will be of most benefit to our beliefs...if pornography and gay/lesbian rights are more important to a person than a balanced budget, wars being ended, a strong job market...then that person has the right to make that their criteria for who they support...our country wasn't begun that way...didn't grow strong that way...didn't become the greatest nation on the earth that way...but it's their right...
...I believe we need to go back to the roots of this country...the Bible and its values...which WAS the foundation for many of our laws and the measuring stick used by many of our first Presidents and legislators...and we're still enjoying the benefits of that value system...and before someone screams "no religious posts"...this is not religion...it's our well-documented American History...and could be our future, if we were wise enough to make it happen...

speedsix wrote:...historically, the people in power carry their moral values (or lack of) with them...from the Founding Fathers and first presidents through the candidates today...personally, I'd rather have her values in place in law than Clinton's...but I understand that we as a nation don't want our government legislating our morality...at least that's the catch phrase we hear...
...ALL governments legislate morality...BOTH parties...we, as voters, have to decide what's important to us, and what's good for the country and our children and grandchildren...and vote for the people and laws that we feel will be of most benefit to our beliefs...if pornography and gay/lesbian rights are more important to a person than a balanced budget, wars being ended, a strong job market...then that person has the right to make that their criteria for who they support...our country wasn't begun that way...didn't grow strong that way...didn't become the greatest nation on the earth that way...but it's their right...
...I believe we need to go back to the roots of this country...the Bible and its values...which WAS the foundation for many of our laws and the measuring stick used by many of our first Presidents and legislators...and we're still enjoying the benefits of that value system...and before someone screams "no religious posts"...this is not religion...it's our well-documented American History...and could be our future, if we were wise enough to make it happen...

speedsix wrote:...historically, the people in power carry their moral values (or lack of) with them...from the Founding Fathers and first presidents through the candidates today...personally, I'd rather have her values in place in law than Clinton's...but I understand that we as a nation don't want our government legislating our morality...at least that's the catch phrase we hear...
...ALL governments legislate morality...BOTH parties...we, as voters, have to decide what's important to us, and what's good for the country and our children and grandchildren...and vote for the people and laws that we feel will be of most benefit to our beliefs...if pornography and gay/lesbian rights are more important to a person than a balanced budget, wars being ended, a strong job market...then that person has the right to make that their criteria for who they support...our country wasn't begun that way...didn't grow strong that way...didn't become the greatest nation on the earth that way...but it's their right...
...I believe we need to go back to the roots of this country...the Bible and its values...which WAS the foundation for many of our laws and the measuring stick used by many of our first Presidents and legislators...and we're still enjoying the benefits of that value system...and before someone screams "no religious posts"...this is not religion...it's our well-documented American History...and could be our future, if we were wise enough to make it happen...

I guess I missed something -- who is "her"

speedsix wrote:if pornography and gay/lesbian rights are more important to a person than a balanced budget, wars being ended, a strong job market...then that person has the right to make that their criteria for who they support...our country wasn't begun that way

Why do the issues of pornography and gay/lesbian rights have to be concerns exclusive to those of balancing the budget, ending wars and a strong job market? Being concerned about one means that you cannot be concerned about the other?

I would also be interested in how our country was begun, so that I can gain a further understanding of the statement above.

Though Bachmann appeared at first to be a viable candidate, it soon became apparent that she is a perfect example of exactly what you appear to be decrying, but as the exact opposite. She is obviously against abortion, gay marriage and similar social-issues that a Christian Conservative might oppose. Yet she is what one might consider a Fiscal Conservative.

To me this is simply a statement that if you don't follow the Ultra-Conservative philosophy in regards to Social Issues, you by default cannot be a Fiscal Conservative and therefore do not care about your country. This contradicts the very idea set forth in the Constitution that Government should not be intruding in our private lives (unless your private lives happen to be different than mine). This is utter hypocrisy.

My version of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness may differ from yours. Legislating how either one of us goes about that pursuit should only go so far as making sure that it does not interfere with someone else's.

Your feelings about social issues are every bit as valid as mine. But they should simply be discussion points for us to merrily banter about over a cold-drink. They should not be issues handled by the Federal government.

sjfcontrol wrote:

speedsix wrote:...historically, the people in power carry their moral values (or lack of) with them...from the Founding Fathers and first presidents through the candidates today...personally, I'd rather have her values in place in law than Clinton's...but I understand that we as a nation don't want our government legislating our morality...at least that's the catch phrase we hear...
...ALL governments legislate morality...BOTH parties...we, as voters, have to decide what's important to us, and what's good for the country and our children and grandchildren...and vote for the people and laws that we feel will be of most benefit to our beliefs...if pornography and gay/lesbian rights are more important to a person than a balanced budget, wars being ended, a strong job market...then that person has the right to make that their criteria for who they support...our country wasn't begun that way...didn't grow strong that way...didn't become the greatest nation on the earth that way...but it's their right...
...I believe we need to go back to the roots of this country...the Bible and its values...which WAS the foundation for many of our laws and the measuring stick used by many of our first Presidents and legislators...and we're still enjoying the benefits of that value system...and before someone screams "no religious posts"...this is not religion...it's our well-documented American History...and could be our future, if we were wise enough to make it happen...

I guess I missed something -- who is "her"

...I guess you missed SEVERAL somethings...we've been talking at length about Michelle Bachmann...who is quite a "her"...coffee's ready in the kitchen...