• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

My pick for 2016

A

Anonymous

Guest


Jon Huntsman talks about the importance of having a positive message in politics: “Anger is not a substitute for good policy. Yet it seems to play well among certain corners of my party. And it’s not where we should be. We should turn that energy into finding reality-based solutions and bringing people together in ways that really do further an agenda that I think most Americans could agree on – and that is rebuilding some of our broken fundamentals in this country, because everybody needs an economy that works, everybody needs good schools for their families, everybody wants the kinds of confident, reliable relationships abroad that allow America’s light to shine.”
-----------------------



RF: What is the hardest truth that Republicans today have to face?

JH: That without being a reality-based, solutions-oriented party, we have no future. If we can be a reality-based, solutions-oriented party, we can capture the demographics and we can find solutions to our most vexing problems -- which will require by the way, some element of compromise, because without compromise, you cannot further an agenda.



As long as compromise is seen as something akin to treason, it becomes impossible for us to move the policy ball forward.


http://www.riponsociety.org/forum124jh.htm


Knowing that the Republican Party is too tied up within itself to nominate this fellow- I sure would like to see him become the Libertarian candidate in 2016....
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
He might be your "pick"....but everybody here already knows that your vote is already in Hillary's pocket.

Go spread your bullchi+ someplace where they might believe it.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Sure you like him OT he is for gay marriage, benefits for illegal immigrants, cap and trade. He also is for getting rid of Utah's drinking laws even thought he doesn't drink. He is Mormon.....if I remember right you ran down Romney for being Mormon.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
He's about the closest besides Johnson that support the Libertarian ideas of staying out of folks lives...

 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
He's about the closest besides Johnson that support the Libertarian ideas of staying out of folks lives...


That is all fine and dandy but don't push it down my throat with coming out parties with the President calling you. Keep it in the bedroom. You don't need gay pride days. Lay off me if I want my freedom from all this.
 

Tom in TN

Well-known member
Hate America and want to destroy our culture? -- Endorse all of that crap that OT espouses.

Your freedom does not include destroying America's future, and I have every intention of opposing all of that foolishness.

You and your Muslim president can "fundamentally change" someone else's country, but I'll oppose your changes to my country.

That's real freedom.

Tom in TN
 

Tam

Well-known member
People voting for third party in the US is just splitting the vote and allowing the Dems to skate in and further destroy the US.

As far as voting for Hillary please remember she supported her sex pervert husband when he sexually assaulted countless women over MANY YEARS. She and her Husband publicly embarrassed the US government when they LIED ABOUT his sickness. She chose to destroy the women verses holding her husband accountable for HIS SICKNESS. She sold her soul for power and has lied to keep her power. A vote for Hillary puts another generation of White House interns at risk to Bill's sex sickness.

The Dems blame Bush for lying about Saddam having WMD but Hillary and the left bias media that are supporting her forget both Hillary and Bill are on record of promoting the story of WMD and she voted to support the war Bush is taking total blame for.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

She de-stabilized the Middle East with her DOS actions and lied about her success and got an Ambassador KILLED because she would not admit a hers and Obama's Foreign Policy FAILURE.

TRIPOLI, Libya — At 5:45 p.m. on March 19, three hours before the official start of the air campaign over Libya, four French Rafale jet fighters streaked across the Mediterranean coastline to attack a column of tanks heading toward the rebel city of Benghazi. The jets quickly obliterated their targets — and in doing so nearly upended the international alliance coming to Benghazi’s rescue.

France’s head start on the air war infuriated Italy’s prime minister, who accused Paris of upstaging NATO. Silvio Berlusconi warned darkly of cutting access to Italian air bases vital to the alliance’s warplanes.

“It nearly broke up the coalition,” said a European diplomat who had a front-row seat to the events and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters between allies. Yet the rift was quickly patched, thanks to a frenzied but largely unseen lobbying effort that kept the coalition from unraveling in its opening hours.

“That,” the diplomat said, “was Hillary.”

Seven months later, with longtime U.S. nemesis Moammar Gaddafi dead and Libya’s onetime rebels now in charge, the coalition air campaign has emerged as a foreign policy success for the Obama administration and its most famous Cabinet member, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She bold face lied to the grieving families of those that lost love ones in Benghazi and the American public to cover her fat azz because those deaths were preventable, according to a Bipartisan Senate report, if Hillary had done her job in providing requested addition security after she destabilized the area. But she could/would not do that as then she would have had to admit her and Obama's meddling was NOT A SUCCESS.

She failed to declare a terrorist group for what they were and now that group is known as one of the most brutal TERRORIST GROUPS killing people and kidnapping 100s of young girls to sell them for $12 a piece.

Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

And now she is out making speeches blaming others for not dealing with the group. :mad:

She supports her husbands sickness by destroying his victims then claims the Republicans have a war on women
She supports the WMD story and Iraq war then blames Republicans/Bush when her and her husband's Administrations WMD claims are proven to be FALSE.
She supports de-stabilizing Libya then lies about the terrorist attack that killed Americans to protect her Political career then claims the Republicans are on a witch hunt when they want to get to the TRUTH.
She campaigned on being there to answer the three AM phone call but she wasn't there for any of the calls coming from the Ambassador for months prior to the Terrorist attack that killed him and others. And when asked about the lying she was spewing by the Congress Oversight Committee, she yells out WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW.
She fails to declare Boko Haram to be a terrorist group for years while they were killing people and is now blaming others for not dealing with them because they have turned to kidnapping young girls and selling them.

Yep that is really someone that should be sitting in the Oval Office. Can you just imagine what she will LIE ABOUT AS PRESIDENT. Oh and don't worry if you don't vote for the Dems next WE WANT TO MAKE HISTORY CANDIDATE, it will not be because you don't want proven leftwingnut pathological liar in the Oval Office it will be because you HATE ALL WOMEN. :roll: :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ranch hand said:
Oldtimer said:
He's about the closest besides Johnson that support the Libertarian ideas of staying out of folks lives...


That is all fine and dandy but don't push it down my throat with coming out parties with the President calling you. Keep it in the bedroom. You don't need gay pride days. Lay off me if I want my freedom from all this.

Don't like Gay Pride days Parades- don't go to the Parades or support the companies that do.... If folks don't support it - they will cease to exist...
Isn't that supposed to be the true free market capitalist way :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Hmmmmmmmmmm. He said nothing about "Parades". He just doesn't want it strewn all over the TV and news because he doesn't want his children and family corrupted. I think that's very fair.

When you want to screw a horse, goat, or pig, you don't do it front of others in town do you? See? I knew there was something ALMOST decent about you!!!!! :lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
ranch hand said:
Oldtimer said:
He's about the closest besides Johnson that support the Libertarian ideas of staying out of folks lives...


That is all fine and dandy but don't push it down my throat with coming out parties with the President calling you. Keep it in the bedroom. You don't need gay pride days. Lay off me if I want my freedom from all this.

Don't like Gay Pride days Parades- don't go to the Parades or support the companies that do.... If folks don't support it - they will cease to exist...
Isn't that supposed to be the true free market capitalist way :???:

Funny how Conservatives are to just not watch but if say a CEO of a corporation donates a small amount of money to support one man one woman marriage years ago when a majority of his state voted to support it, that CEO is forced out of his job by the Gay activists loud mouths. Funnier yet is how Obama once supported that same cause but he is not being forced out of his job by these same Gay activists loud mouths. DOUBLE STANDARDS ANYONE. :roll:
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
He's about the closest besides Johnson that support the Libertarian ideas of staying out of folks lives...

A climate change agenda is staying out of folks lives? I suspect he'd also run the EPA similar to the current regime.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
I think I'm Libertarian-Curious, but I'm not completely sure. I thought I was a democrat. But growing up, I felt different than other dems. Seemed obvious to them to. I wanted to vote dem, but it just didn't feel right. I felt so confused, ashamed almost.

I've voted for a RINO and it left a bad taste in my mouth. It's obvious that I'm either a Tea partier, or a Libertarian.

Maybe a libertarian can help me with my confusion.

If libertarians believe in the government staying out of peoples lives, why would a libertarian want the government not only involved, but completely controlling one of the most important parts of a person's life- health care?

Do libertarians cave (compromise) to any cause that will increase the amount of government in their lives so that other people that wouldn't vote for them anyway will like them?

Don't like guns- don'... scratch that- can't buy one because some people might not "feel" safe, even if there is no evidence to support them.

Don't like gay marriage- don'.... scratch that- you have to perform one and take photos even if don't want to because that is freedom.

Don't like abortions- don'.... scratch that- you have to pay for any kid that wants one because that is in the Constitution and it is a woman's right.

Don't like paying for other people's birth control- don'..... ooops, that is their womanly right again...

If a libertarian controlled congress legalized all narcotics, does the tax payers have to pay for the poor decisions made by the addicts, removing income from the tax payers?

If a libertarian controlled congress got the government out of peoples lives by revoking the government mandate to buy insurance, would the tax payers be forced to pay for all the non-buyers medical care- therefor having the government more involved in their pay check?
 
Top