"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[TemplarKormac]

If you think Ted Cruz is good candidate, then empty rhetoric is all you need.

LOL. If you want a lesson on how NOT to run a campaign, just watch Hillary Clinton.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I challenge your assertion that you are not far Right extreme. I don't need to present anything either.

I challenge your assertion that he is a right wing extreme. You haven't presented anything thus far proving he is one. What attributes must he have in order to be one? Or is this a default reaction to a well thought out argument?

 

[TemplarKormac]

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U S I O N on PARADE.

The Tea party took the majority of the seats gained by the GOP in 2014.

And it was obama's abuse if his executive power which precluded the means of the Tea Party to organize which rests as the basis of that addled pew poll.

ROFLMNAO!

You cannot make this crap up!

If democrats and their media cannot convince the GOP that "moderates" are the key to victory, then the GOP will not nominate Jeb Bush. If the GOP does not nominate Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton will lose the general election. It is CRITICAL for democrats to promote the absurd fiction that voters prefer mealy-mouthed leftist wannabes.

Buddy... The media is going to do what it always does. We need to come to grips with the fact that the US no longer possesses a free press. 'The Media' has been an arm of the Left for the last 70 years and unapologetically so for the last 50.

I don't think the media is going to be able to get past that fact anymore as Americans simply no longer listen to them. The idiots of course DO... But the idiots aren't going to choose the GOP candidate this time around.

The GOP elite dam' well knows that if they try to push another Moderate... They're toast.

So it will come down to an American. Probably Cruz. Not my favorite ... For all the reasons I've already stated. But I'll vote for a Cruz... I'll vote for a Rubio, or a Carson... I will not vote for a Bush or a Romney or a McCain

Good thing FOX News isn't part of the news media.

Actually, they are THE news media. Have a seat.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bush left a weak and sorry sack of shit in charge in Iraq...

No... it was WASHINGTON!

Right-wing extremists ALWAYS blame "WASHINGTON" for the messes far Right CON$ervoFascist ideologs make.

And left-wing extremists have Christians, gun owners, and traditional marriage supporters to blame... for just about anything. And it is Washington, what else would it be? There's the problem with people like you, you think Washington can do no wrong. How sad.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well.
-Samuel Butler

Wow Eddy... I knew you were stupid, I just didn't realize how much of a left-wing tool you were.

Coming from you, being a "stupid" truth-teller is a compliment.
Thank you.

Coming from someone who says "Conservofascist" every other word, you have no place calling anyone stupid. A truth teller you are not.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Demonizing bullshit is all you got, huh.

Actually, who better to learn it from, be it not from you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would characterize fascism as anything but a right wing populist movement.

I agree, though the left here has hijacked such a philosophy and made it their own. Everything about the left now reflects fascism to a tee. Care to refute that whenever you make it back to this thread?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Second, you are completely dishonest about everything all the time.

You're one to talk.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Far Right see everyone who isn't Far Right as Socialists, that is why they are mindless Far Right Fascist Ideologues.

That's interesting, but from where I sit, people like you see anyone, any conservative, moderate or independent as "Far Right."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Everybody knows

No, they don't. You keep saying that, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Again we see the deliberate deception of the Far Right by controlling the language.

When you have every liberal media outlet from LA to New York chasing Hillary's Scooby Van, just who is it trying to "control the language" hmm?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe you should learn a little history genius

When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

Again we see the deliberate deception of the Far Right by controlling the language. "Tax hike" means "tax hike" not "income tax hike." St Ronnie raised every kind of tax except the PROGRESSIVE income tax. Reagan raised all the regressive taxes he could like payroll taxes and gas taxes and cut the progressive income tax. As a result the total taxes paid by the wealthy went down and the total taxes paid by the middle class went up. Reagan started the destruction of the middle class.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

Provide links for your bogus numbers

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility — or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Paul Krugman is a certifiable lunatic

To pull a Bossy here, by that YOU MEAN you can't dispute the numbers.

Yet, you didn't post where you got those numbers from. Paul Krugman? And since when does he qualify as a valid source? Can you confirm those numbers with something other than his website?

 

[Clementine]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

I agree. It's the wishy washy RINOs that turn people off. If they would choose a candidate that stood by his convictions instead of one who tries to be agreeable with the left, we'd all be better off.

If liberals were more honest regarding their true agenda, people would reject them in a big way. Democrats try to sound more conservative during campaigns with all the family values and lowering taxes. It's conservative values and people love it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Repeating your unprovable pontification of your redefinition of the language does not make your preposterous claims any more credible.

Repeating the word "conservofascist" does not make your argument any more viable.

Try again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What you MEAN is there is nothing more far right than a CON$ervative.

So, what kind of conservative qualifies as "far right?" I know there are conservative democrats out there, they can't possibly be far right can they? You moron.

 

[auditor0007]

There's no such thing as a 'Far-Right'.

One either Recognizes, Respects, Defends and Adheres to the Principles that define America, or one does not and since there's no such thing as "REALLY Recognizing, Respecting, Defending, and Adhering to American Principles, well... you know.

The thing to understand however is that where one runs a campaign resting upon those principles... one wins. And that is because those principles speak to the human soul.

And what exactly are American principles as set forth by those who wrote our Constitution? Oh yes, slavery is fine. Blacks and women cannot vote. In fact, only land owners can vote. Hell, women could only own land under certain special circumstances. I'm a bit tired of right wing nutters assuming their version of America is the only one that is legitimate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And CON$ervatism is a hate religion

Liberals hate religion.

You've been cynic-ed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

simply took your incoherent rant and substituted

This isn't Mythbusters, you aren't Adam Savage; and no, you can't reject reality and substitute your own.

 

[edthecynic]

Have you read Cruz's bio? He's a genius and and expert debater ask Alan Dershowitz

But bluffs like "the data don't support it" only work in debates because the opponent is not allowed to fact check during the debate, the debater is required to have the facts in their head. The day after the debate the fact checkers will point out that Cruz's "data" is phony. Debating bluffers like Cruz do not stand up to fact checking.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Cruz would smoke every democrook in a debate

Baloney!

Cruz tries to bluff his debate opponents with his pet BS line, "the data don't support it," when the data NEVER supports his lies.

Yet, your lies don't support your lies. *No, this isn't a typo*