GOP preparing for contested convention

[sanman]

 

[haymarket]

They can call themselves the ****ing CARE BEARS, as far as you're concerned. It's a free country.

Yup - it is a free country. So what?

Do you know what a Boston Cream Pie is?

If you don't like it, check your mailbox every day for the rat's ass in the mail that you may be expecting from me.

Your inability to turn 19% for Reagan into a majority seems to be overloading your mouth.

You libs really HATE losing an argument.

You lost the argument when
1- you presented a public opinion poll pretending that 19% was a majority, and
2 - failed to present any evidence that the tea party is a majority of Americans

Nobody here can lose an argument against you since you already defeat yourself with these sort of tactics. Come on back when you learn how to support your own claims of fact.

 

[Deuce]

I voted for him in 1980. And again in 84.

And he was the greatest president in history. PERIOD.

Only an idiot thinks otherwise, and there aren't too many of them.

I agree. Reducing nuclear stockpile, amnesty for illegal immigrants, higher taxes than Bush Jr, strengthening gun control, kickstarting cap and trade systems. Good times.

Giving guns to terrorists, on the other hand, I'm less of a fan of.

 

[Chomsky]

True enough, Jeb Bush isn't a "personality" by any stretch. But does America want another empty personality after the past 6 plus years? Jeb Bush is one of the most serious, policy wise and personality wise, to run for President in decades. Isn't it time for America to get some serious business done? And I'd just add that GW Bush currently has higher approval levels than either President Obama or Hillary Clinton and people looking back at his Presidency aren't as harsh or dismissive as they were immediately following. The Bush name isn't as toxic as some may think.

It's a long shot at this point, but not out of the question.

I do realize GW Bushe's approval rating has increased since his Presidency, as is typical.

The hallmark of his Presidency was the unpopular war, and Jeb Bush would either have to successfully decouple himself from his brother, or ameliorate the negativity over the war (if the negativity does indeed still exist in substantial strength), in order to succeed.

But, the idea of only having a continuation of the Bush-Clinton dynasty to validate, might leave a few voters sitting at home come election day! :doh

 

[rocket88]

I voted for him in 1980. And again in 84.

And he was the greatest president in history. PERIOD.

Only an idiot thinks otherwise, and there aren't too many of them.

No, the greatest in history was Lincoln. Only an idiot thinks history started in 1970.

 

[rocket88]

Eisenhower didn't create the largest and longest sustained growth of the economy in history, like Reagan did.

And Reagan didn't face half the country trying to secede and a 4 year Civil War...Lincoln, on the other hand...

 

[rocket88]

Actually, the majority do not.

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, HW Bush, and Clinton ALL poll better than Reagan.

And none of them were Abraham Lincoln. /end sub-thread.

 

[rocket88]

It sounds more like something you just made up.

That's because it is.

 

[rocket88]

YOu liberals elected Barak Obama, the worst president in the world. Right now, bags of hammers have doctorate degrees compared to liberals.

.

Not even the worst in the history of the United States. You realize that history doesn't begin in 1970, right?

If you simply go outside of the United States, he definitely doesn't rank with Fyodor I, for example.

Third, you call him an idiot, but you can't even spell his name correctly.

 

[Absentglare]

That's bull**** and you know it.

The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy

No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | Cato Institute

In 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton’s economic record has been better than Reagan’s.


Correcting the Revisionists on the Reagan Record | Human Events

Nope, your revisionist links are woefully ironic.

"Carter signed numerous deregulation measures. One free-market-oriented commentator chose the occasion of Reagan’s 100th birthday to praise Carter, not Reagan, as “deregulation’s hero.” Thomas A. Firey, senior fellow as the Maryland Public Policy Institute, wrote: “It was the peanut farmer from Georgia who pushed the United States toward a market economy, not the one-time actor from California.”"

"On spending, ironically, Obama’s record has indeed been the “exact opposite” of Reagan’s in one little-noticed respect. Under Obama, federal spending is actually falling, something that never happened under Reagan. Total federal outlays went down 1.7 percent last fiscal year. And in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, the CBO projects a scant rise of 0.4 percent — much less than the projected rate of inflation (see Summary Table 2)."

"One reason for the larger deficits: Reagan — for all his tax-cutting — still enjoyed larger revenues than Obama, relative to the size of the economy. Under Reagan, revenues were 18.4 percent of GDP during his final fiscal year. Obama inherited revenues of only 15.1 percent in fiscal year 2009. They hit 15.8 percent last fiscal year. After his “fiscal cliff” tax deal, raising rates on upper-income households, the CBO projects they will rise to 16.9 percent in the current fiscal year — still lower than in any of Reagan’s eight years."

Ted’s Twisted History

 

[Grant]

And Reagan didn't face half the country trying to secede and a 4 year Civil War...Lincoln, on the other hand...

And Lincoln didn't face down and defeat, Communism, the world's greatest source of murder and inhumanity. And he did it all without costing the number of American lives lost in the Civil War.

 

[Grant]

Not even the worst in the history of the United States. You realize that history doesn't begin in 1970, right?

If you simply go outside of the United States, he definitely doesn't rank with Feodor I, for example.

Third, you call him an idiot, but you can't even spell his name correctly.

Feodor I was harmless. That's not the case with Barrack Obama. Obama will definitely be remembered as the worst President in American history. Jimmy Carter is a lucky man.

 

[rocket88]

Feodor I was harmless. That's not the case with Barrack Obama. Obama will definitely be remembered as the worst President in American history. Jimmy Carter is a lucky man.

Neither of them approach Andrew Johnson. Contrary to what the RW noise machine says, American history did not begin in 1970.

 

[rocket88]

And Lincoln didn't face down and defeat, Communism, the world's greatest source of murder and inhumanity. And he did it all without costing the number of American lives lost in the Civil War.

Without Lincoln, Reagan wouldn't have even gotten a chance.

 

[Grant]

Neither of them approach Andrew Johnson. Contrary to what the RW noise machine says, American history did not begin in 1970.

Andrew Johnson never made an international blunder costing many thousands of lives the way Barrack Obama did. What do you feel are the BHO accomplishments?

Here are a few listed by one writer. 5 Obama Successes Republicans Pretend Never Happened

 

[Grant]

Without Lincoln, Reagan wouldn't have even gotten a chance.

The same could be said of George Washington. But Reagan did get the chance, and succeeded, which is why he is so admired today.

 

[rocket88]

Andrew Johnson never made an international blunder costing many thousands of lives the way Barrack Obama did. What do you feel are the BHO accomplishments?

Here are a few listed by one writer. 5 Obama Successes Republicans Pretend Never Happened

Nice attempt at a deflection. Very transparent, but nice try.

 

[Kobie]

Feodor I was harmless. That's not the case with Barrack Obama. Obama will definitely be remembered as the worst President in American history. Jimmy Carter is a lucky man.

LOL. No.

 

[rocket88]

The same could be said of George Washington. But Reagan did get the chance, and succeeded, which is why he is so admired today.

Reagan deserves the admiration, he was a good President. Just not as great as Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Grant]

Nice attempt at a deflection. Very transparent, but nice try.

In fact I was offering you some suggestions of Obama's accomplishments! What deflection?

Do you really not understand Obama's international record? Is that what this is all about?

 

[Frank Apisa]

You libs just can't STAND to lose an argument.

Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in history and I just produced a poll to prove it.

What is your major malfunction, PYLE?

You could not possibly have produced a poll to prove it...because it simply is not true.

You produced a poll that purported to show something like that.

Try something else.

Ronald Reagan had lots of good qualities for a president...

...but he was light years from being the greatest president we've ever had. And in my opinion, he did much more harm than good for our country and the world.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I do realize GW Bushe's approval rating has increased since his Presidency, as is typical.

The hallmark of his Presidency was the unpopular war, and Jeb Bush would either have to successfully decouple himself from his brother, or ameliorate the negativity over the war (if the negativity does indeed still exist in substantial strength), in order to succeed.

But, the idea of only having a continuation of the Bush-Clinton dynasty to validate, might leave a few voters sitting at home come election day! :doh

If they stay home, they have nothing to complain about and are significantly responsible for the government they get. It's why I dismiss any so called Republican or conservative who stayed home and let Obama become President twice because they were in a snit about McCain or Romney. If any Republican thinks anyone learned a lesson from their abandonment of their party's nominee, it's that the fringe of the party can't be counted on and should be discounted in any primary/nomination process.

 

[Chomsky]

If they stay home, they have nothing to complain about and are significantly responsible for the government they get. It's why I dismiss any so called Republican or conservative who stayed home and let Obama become President twice because they were in a snit about McCain or Romney. If any Republican thinks anyone learned a lesson from their abandonment of their party's nominee, it's that the fringe of the party can't be counted on and should be discounted in any primary/nomination process.

Agreed.

And this very well may have the powers-that-be considering the possibility of Sen Cruz, if he will stay-off the NYC billionaire.

 

[Frank Apisa]

If they stay home, they have nothing to complain about and are significantly responsible for the government they get. It's why I dismiss any so called Republican or conservative who stayed home and let Obama become President twice because they were in a snit about McCain or Romney. If any Republican thinks anyone learned a lesson from their abandonment of their party's nominee, it's that the fringe of the party can't be counted on and should be discounted in any primary/nomination process.

If it makes you guys feel any better...the left is going through that same thing right now. There are people who are saying that either Bernie Sanders gets the nomination...or they will stay home rather than vote for Hillary Clinton, whom they see (as they do with Barack Obama) as way too far right for their taste.

Amazing...the fringe element.

 

[dimensionallava]

If it makes you guys feel any better...the left is going through that same thing right now. There are people who are saying that either Bernie Sanders gets the nomination...or they will stay home rather than vote for Hillary Clinton, whom they see (as they do with Barack Obama) as way too far right for their taste.

Amazing...the fringe element.

I don't understand this sentiment at all, how is bernie sanders more leftist then hillary clinton? i mean in terms of actual policy, the whole "democratic socialist" thing is cute, but what does bernie actually stand for that hillary doesn't? loose gun control?