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

Republican congressman prefers Hillary to Rand/Cruz

djinwa

Well-known member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN_Ir-1Tygw&feature=youtu.be

Here we go again. King is already playing the isolationist card (Rand is actually for non-intervention - minding our own business). King lavishes praise on Hillary - just goes to show not much difference between the parties.

Amazingly at the end, he speaks against "pandering to fears". Well, what is our entire foreign policy based on? There are supposedly terrorists everywhere, which is why we need to lose thousands of lives, and spend trillions of dollars, be groped in the airports, etc.

I wonder who is asking him to run? Surely nobody connected to defense contractors!

Ironically, he cites Eisenhower and Reagan. Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex, and Reagan regretted his involvement in the middle east.

Eisenhower:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Reagan:
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.
 

Steve

Well-known member
so far the press has been 'receptive' to King's 2016 run... that alone is a good reason to not support him now... :lol: :shock:



Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said he will not attend a big Republican fundraising dinner

once he heard Sen. Ted Cruz was the headliner, it “made it easy.”

“I don’t think we should be acknowledging people who are voting against us in our hour of need,” King told BuzzFeed, referring to Cruz’s vote against federal relief funding in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

“Once I found it was him,” King continued, “I decided not to go. I don’t know if I would have gone or not because of scheduling things, but that made it easy once I found out it was Ted Cruz.”

Ted Cruz voted against the relief bill because it was laden with PORK:

sure there may be a chance that Hillery will beat Rand.. it would be a tight race..

but there is no chance in h377 that King would beat Hillery..
heck I am not even sure if King could beat Biden.. :shock:

so for now.. I will continue to support Rand...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Steve said:
so far the press has been 'receptive' to King's 2016 run... that alone is a good reason to not support him now... :lol: :shock:



Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said he will not attend a big Republican fundraising dinner

once he heard Sen. Ted Cruz was the headliner, it “made it easy.”

“I don’t think we should be acknowledging people who are voting against us in our hour of need,” King told BuzzFeed, referring to Cruz’s vote against federal relief funding in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

“Once I found it was him,” King continued, “I decided not to go. I don’t know if I would have gone or not because of scheduling things, but that made it easy once I found out it was Ted Cruz.”

Ted Cruz voted against the relief bill because it was laden with PORK:

sure there may be a chance that Hillery will beat Rand.. it would be a tight race..

but there is no chance in h377 that King would beat Hillery..
heck I am not even sure if King could beat Biden.. :shock:

so for now.. I will continue to support Rand...

Well I hope that who ever runs against her, has a Super Pac with very deep pockets and they use all their funds to continuously run her famous comment on every TV and Radio channel in the US

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW.

Then add in her claiming the Ambassador was killed over a video. :x

Every friggin lie she said while protecting her POLITICAL CAREER needs to come back and bite her. She allowed those four men to be slaughtered under her watch and she needs to pay for the lying she did to cover it up. :mad:
 

djinwa

Well-known member
I agree politicians need to be held accountable for their lying.

In addition to Hillary, here is a list of the lies by the Bush administration leading up to the war in Iraq which has cost over 3,000 American lives. Hundreds of thousands more with head trauma of various degrees - many debilitating for life. That war will cost over 6 trillion after lifetime care of the wounded and debilitated.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
djinwa said:
I agree politicians need to be held accountable for their lying.

In addition to Hillary, here is a list of the lies by the Bush administration leading up to the war in Iraq which has cost over 3,000 American lives. Hundreds of thousands more with head trauma of various degrees - many debilitating for life. That war will cost over 6 trillion after lifetime care of the wounded and debilitated.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

This is so sad, but old news. Bush didn't do anything without the approval of Congress, many of them Democrats.

As Whitewing would say, "try to keep up".

How about Obama. What do you have to say about the lives he has cost?

War is terrible. Period. Let's don't pin it on one person.
 

Steve

Well-known member
War is terrible. Period. Let's don't pin it on one person.

the person or persons to blame the wars on are Osama, saddam and the terrorist

osama and the terrorists attacked the United States,.. the Taliban refused to cooperate on bringing them to justice..

saddam invaded Kuwait and violated the ceasefire agreement,.. including "rewarding" suicide bombers.

and yes, Bush was in charge, and should be held accountable, for the intelligence mistakes..

but to blame Bush for all the mistakes in the Islamic world is misguided.. just as is re-fighting that argument to avoid holding the current administration accountable is misguided.


and we as a country should learn from those mistakes and not repeat them.. as Obama is doing in his inept foreign policy decisions are doing in Syria and Egypt..
 

Tam

Well-known member
djinwa said:
I agree politicians need to be held accountable for their lying.

In addition to Hillary, here is a list of the lies by the Bush administration leading up to the war in Iraq which has cost over 3,000 American lives. Hundreds of thousands more with head trauma of various degrees - many debilitating for life. That war will cost over 6 trillion after lifetime care of the wounded and debilitated.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

djinwa do you know who said this and when it was said

"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."

Do you know who said this and when

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

and this

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

and this

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

and this

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

and this
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Want to take a stab in the dark to what all the people that made these comments have in common? :?
 

djinwa

Well-known member
Not sure what your point is. I just think we should agree that all liars should be held accountable - Bush, Obama, Hillary, etc.

Can we agree on that, or do our rules only apply to the other guys?

By the way, I did not vote for Bush or Obama - I am an independent. I prefer principles to party.

I tried to be a Republican last year, but as a delegate to our county convention, we were required to swear allegiance to the party and support the eventual candidate, regardless of what he stood for.

I refused.

Sadly, I've learned politics is based on tribalism and a gang mentality. If our guys do it, its okay, if the other guys do it, its not.

Which is why there is little difference between the parties, and why we'll never get ahead as long as our focus is bashing the other side for the same stuff our guy does.
 

Silver

Well-known member
djinwa said:
Not sure what your point is. I just think we should agree that all liars should be held accountable - Bush, Obama, Hillary, etc.

Can we agree on that, or do our rules only apply to the other guys?

By the way, I did not vote for Bush or Obama - I am an independent. I prefer principles to party.

I tried to be a Republican last year, but as a delegate to our county convention, we were required to swear allegiance to the party and support the eventual candidate, regardless of what he stood for.

I refused.

Sadly, I've learned politics is based on tribalism and a gang mentality. If our guys do it, its okay, if the other guys do it, its not.

Which is why there is little difference between the parties, and why we'll never get ahead as long as our focus is bashing the other side for the same stuff our guy does.

:clap:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Silver said:
djinwa said:
Not sure what your point is. I just think we should agree that all liars should be held accountable - Bush, Obama, Hillary, etc.

Can we agree on that, or do our rules only apply to the other guys?

By the way, I did not vote for Bush or Obama - I am an independent. I prefer principles to party.

I tried to be a Republican last year, but as a delegate to our county convention, we were required to swear allegiance to the party and support the eventual candidate, regardless of what he stood for.

I refused.

Sadly, I've learned politics is based on tribalism and a gang mentality. If our guys do it, its okay, if the other guys do it, its not.

Which is why there is little difference between the parties, and why we'll never get ahead as long as our focus is bashing the other side for the same stuff our guy does.


:clap:


When you refused, you were one of those who helped make it possible for Obama to get back into the White House.

I don't think Bush knowingly lied. I think he was mistaken when he made his decision. Obama is a chronic liar as are the people he has put behind him.

No way did Bush overstep his bounds as Obama has. I imagine you feel real good about refusing........but look what happened.........you just as well have voted for Obama. I'm totally with Soapweed on this subject. We can't vote Independent and change anything. Not at this point, perhaps someday.
It's a noble thought, voting Independent, but it hurts more than it helps. The Independent guy never gets in (Presidential Office) anyway, so at best, it's a wasted vote. We must vote for the party and this last election proved that. JMO, you understand.

One thing about it, principle doesn't count for much with this current administration. I fear America will never be the same. Could you really ever imagine our country would be facing what it is, thanks to Obama? I could
not imagine it in my wildest dreams. I knew it would be bad, but didn't know how bad it is or how much worse it will be.

I will never believe that Mitt Romney wouldn't have made a much better president than what we have now.
 

Zilly

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
When you refused, you were one of those who helped make it possible for Obama to get back into the White House.

That argument simply does not fly. Even if Romney garnered ALL of the third party votes, he still needed over 3 million more votes to even tie Obama.

If we continue on this two party system, we are destined for more of the same. So, given the state of the country, why isn't now a time to make a change? Honestly, what's the worst that could happen?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Zilly said:
Faster horses said:
When you refused, you were one of those who helped make it possible for Obama to get back into the White House.

That argument simply does not fly. Even if Romney garnered ALL of the third party votes, he still needed over 3 million more votes to even tie Obama.

If we continue on this two party system, we are destined for more of the same. So, given the state of the country, why isn't now a time to make a change? Honestly, what's the worst that could happen?

I don't understand the two party system either. Seems like there should be room for a middle of the road party there somewhere.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Silver said:
Zilly said:
Faster horses said:
When you refused, you were one of those who helped make it possible for Obama to get back into the White House.

That argument simply does not fly. Even if Romney garnered ALL of the third party votes, he still needed over 3 million more votes to even tie Obama.

If we continue on this two party system, we are destined for more of the same. So, given the state of the country, why isn't now a time to make a change? Honestly, what's the worst that could happen?

I don't understand the two party system either. Seems like there should be room for a middle of the road party there somewhere.

The Republicans in the US are the Middle Of the Road party. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
djinwa said:
Not sure what your point is. I just think we should agree that all liars should be held accountable - Bush, Obama, Hillary, etc.

Can we agree on that, or do our rules only apply to the other guys?

By the way, I did not vote for Bush or Obama - I am an independent. I prefer principles to party.

I tried to be a Republican last year, but as a delegate to our county convention, we were required to swear allegiance to the party and support the eventual candidate, regardless of what he stood for.

I refused.

Sadly, I've learned politics is based on tribalism and a gang mentality. If our guys do it, its okay, if the other guys do it, its not.

Which is why there is little difference between the parties, and why we'll never get ahead as long as our focus is bashing the other side for the same stuff our guy does.

My point is all of those quotes were from Democrats ranging in the timeframe of when Bill Clinton was in office right through to when Bush went to war with Iraq and If you have fallen into the hole with the rest of those believing BUSH lied to get the US into a war in Iraq, you are overlooking the fact he was living with Bill, Hillary, John Kerry and a Lot more DEMOCRATS Senators and Congressman putting pressure on him to take out Saddam over the WMD they claimed Saddam had. When Bush did not find the WMD that the Dems swore Saddan had, BUSH WAS CALLED A LIAR. TYPICAL DEMOCRAT M.O. say one thing until it can not be proven then lie about ever saying it. :x

Just like when Obama claimed it was a video that caused Benghazi then after three weeks of LYING to the public and the video lie didn't hold up to Congressional testimony, he came out and tried to claim he called it a terrorist attack from the first day. BULL he did, he lied about a video until he could LIE NO MORE then he LIED AGAIN TO COVER THE FIRST LIE. :x

If You consider BUSH lied then you need to look at WHY he thought Saddam had those missing WMD and put the BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS.

BTW anyone that did not vote for the only candidate that had a prayer of unseating the King has to thank themselves for another four years of Obama lying to your face and laughing at you from behind closed doors. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Silver said:
Zilly said:
Faster horses said:
When you refused, you were one of those who helped make it possible for Obama to get back into the White House.

That argument simply does not fly. Even if Romney garnered ALL of the third party votes, he still needed over 3 million more votes to even tie Obama.

If we continue on this two party system, we are destined for more of the same. So, given the state of the country, why isn't now a time to make a change? Honestly, what's the worst that could happen?

I don't understand the two party system either. Seems like there should be room for a middle of the road party there somewhere.

You mean like the system we have that after an election we do not have a clear Majority. What we have is a government split three ways and the party that actually got the fewest votes gets to control the deciding power. They can side with the one with the highest vote count and push through bills OR they can side with the party that took second in the vote count and toss a legally elected government out as they didn't get what they wanted. And we all know that is what the Liberal and NDP have tried to do more than a few times to the Conservative Government. All you get is a Government that can not live up to their campaign promises as if they do they have to deal with a non confidence vote brought out of spite. Yep that is a better way to run a government, have an election every time the minority parties get their noses out of joint. :roll:
 

Silver

Well-known member
Tam said:
Silver said:
Zilly said:
That argument simply does not fly. Even if Romney garnered ALL of the third party votes, he still needed over 3 million more votes to even tie Obama.

If we continue on this two party system, we are destined for more of the same. So, given the state of the country, why isn't now a time to make a change? Honestly, what's the worst that could happen?

I don't understand the two party system either. Seems like there should be room for a middle of the road party there somewhere.

You mean like the system we have that after an election we do not have a clear Majority. What we have is a government split three ways and the party that actually got the fewest votes gets to control the deciding power. They can side with the one with the highest vote count and push through bills OR they can side with the party that took second in the vote count and toss a legally elected government out as they didn't get what they wanted. And we all know that is what the Liberal and NDP have tried to do more than a few times to the Conservative Government. All you get is a Government that can not live up to their campaign promises as if they do they have to deal with a non confidence vote brought out of spite. Yep that is a better way to run a government, have an election every time the minority parties get their noses out of joint. :roll:

You're starting to figure this Canadian system out Tam, good for you. How long have you been here? :roll: And despite the fact that in your estimable opinion it doesn't work, the fact is it does. :shock:
In fact, often times a minority gov't works better for the people than a majority. :eek:
It's also nice that our pathetic little system :wink: passes a budget every year or the gov't falls. 8)

Did I put enough emoticons in to suit your taste :wink: I guess I did forget to capitalize a bunch of stuff to really emphasize the sarcasm. SORRY
 

Tam

Well-known member
Silver said:
Tam said:
Silver said:
I don't understand the two party system either. Seems like there should be room for a middle of the road party there somewhere.

You mean like the system we have that after an election we do not have a clear Majority. What we have is a government split three ways and the party that actually got the fewest votes gets to control the deciding power. They can side with the one with the highest vote count and push through bills OR they can side with the party that took second in the vote count and toss a legally elected government out as they didn't get what they wanted. And we all know that is what the Liberal and NDP have tried to do more than a few times to the Conservative Government. All you get is a Government that can not live up to their campaign promises as if they do they have to deal with a non confidence vote brought out of spite. Yep that is a better way to run a government, have an election every time the minority parties get their noses out of joint. :roll:

You're starting to figure this Canadian system out Tam, good for you. How long have you been here? :roll: And despite the fact that in your estimable opinion it doesn't work, the fact is it does. :shock:
In fact, often times a minority gov't works better for the people than a majority. :eek:
It's also nice that our pathetic little system :wink: passes a budget every year or the gov't falls. 8)

Did I put enough emoticons in to suit your taste :wink: I guess I did forget to capitalize a bunch of stuff to really emphasize the sarcasm. SORRY

Elections are not CHEAP and we had one every time the Liberal and NDP didn't get what they wanted and figured they could stop the Conservatives by ganging together and voting down their budget which would force yet another election.

I was never so happy as I was the night the Conservatives took enough seats to have a MAJORITY and stop the yearly EXPENSIVE elections for at least four years.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Tam said:
Silver said:
Tam said:
You mean like the system we have that after an election we do not have a clear Majority. What we have is a government split three ways and the party that actually got the fewest votes gets to control the deciding power. They can side with the one with the highest vote count and push through bills OR they can side with the party that took second in the vote count and toss a legally elected government out as they didn't get what they wanted. And we all know that is what the Liberal and NDP have tried to do more than a few times to the Conservative Government. All you get is a Government that can not live up to their campaign promises as if they do they have to deal with a non confidence vote brought out of spite. Yep that is a better way to run a government, have an election every time the minority parties get their noses out of joint. :roll:

You're starting to figure this Canadian system out Tam, good for you. How long have you been here? :roll: And despite the fact that in your estimable opinion it doesn't work, the fact is it does. :shock:
In fact, often times a minority gov't works better for the people than a majority. :eek:
It's also nice that our pathetic little system :wink: passes a budget every year or the gov't falls. 8)

Did I put enough emoticons in to suit your taste :wink: I guess I did forget to capitalize a bunch of stuff to really emphasize the sarcasm. SORRY

Elections are not CHEAP and we had one every time the Liberal and NDP didn't get what they wanted and figured they could stop the Conservative by ganging together and voting down their budget which would force yet another election.

I was never so happy as I was the night the Conservative took enough seats to have a MAJORITY and stop the yearly EXPENSIVE elections for at least four years.

On that I will have to agree whole heartedly with you. It was just like Christmas but without the snow.
However, if we have to pay for a few too many elections along the way it seems a small price to pay for a system that while always could be improved upon is the best in the world.
 

Steve

Well-known member
I tried to be a Republican last year, but as a delegate to our county convention, we were required to swear allegiance to the party and support the eventual candidate, regardless of what he stood for.

not much point in trying to infiltrate a party if you do not agree with them, or the voters who voted for them in the primaries...

why didn't you just join the democrats .. or are they worse in your opinion?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Zilly said:
Faster horses said:
When you refused, you were one of those who helped make it possible for Obama to get back into the White House.

That argument simply does not fly. Even if Romney garnered ALL of the third party votes, he still needed over 3 million more votes to even tie Obama.

If we continue on this two party system, we are destined for more of the same. So, given the state of the country, why isn't now a time to make a change? Honestly, what's the worst that could happen?

many of the libertarian and ultra conservatives just didn't go out to vote...

the numbers of those who stuck to "their principles" could have easily changed the results..

so yes.. those who voted for third party candidates were part of the reason Obama won.

United we stand,.. divided Obama wins..
 
Top