User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 11:12:46 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And 67 to override. That is what he's talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's incorrect. It takes 60 to make him whip out his pen and put his veto on paper. It takes 67 in the Senate and 2/3rds in the House to over ride his pen and paper. Name the 6 Democrats or "independents" that you apparently believe will put their name on the paper in the first place. Name one lol. It takes 60 to end debate. Not to pass. And 67 to override. That is what he's talking about. It still takes 60 to pass. ie obamatax with 60 democrats and sandy hook gun control with the vast majority of democrats voting for it. So that was 1991. In 2013, McConnell held his caucus firmly together against attempts to restrict and regulate gun purchases after the December 2012 Connecticut school shooting at Newtown. The Senate failed to reach the 60 votes needed on measures to expand background checks on gun purchases, to ban assault weapons and to restrict high capacity magazines. McConnell voted no each time and under his stewardship, Republicans blocked the bills from passing. Reid voted in favor of the assault weapon and high capacity magazine bans. He voted against the expanded background checks, a procedural move that allowed him to bring the amendment up for vote again in the future http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/24/matt-bevin/republican-challenger-matt-bevin-attacks-senate-mi/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 11:13:42 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To be honest his behavior was something I would expect from FBHO or one of his minions. Cruz acted in a petulant/peevish manner. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cruz did the right thing and now he's going to pay for it. To be honest his behavior was something I would expect from FBHO or one of his minions. Cruz acted in a petulant/peevish manner.
It is way past the time we should have been petulant. For that matter, it is way past the time we should have been tarrig and feathering and roding out on a rail - save a rail fro Mitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 11:19:40 AM EDT
[#3]
He did the right thing
Sending some cash his way and a note with it. We need more of this not less the rinos should take note of Cruz and trump poll numbers...this is what we need not the old boys bull shit you get with MCain and company |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 11:27:59 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it just me or are the liberal Statists really outing themselves lately on here? It's like they just can't help it Dude - you think this is bad? Step into a global warming thread sometime .... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 11:31:10 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They don't have a supermajority to overcome vetoes,. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I were a US Senator and someone made a statement to me that was so monumental it influenced the way I was going to vote I'd have gone to that person or their office and asked for the statement in writing if they wanted my vote. If I didn't get written assurances I'd either abstain or vote against the measure. When people speak with one another sometimes there can be miscommunications it doesn't always necessarily mean someone intended to be untruthful. Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." I think that's good advice. There is a way to handle things and there is a way NOT to handle things. Going to the press and pulling a "he said, she said" argument is pretty worthless frankly. I don't think the Majority Leader is a bad guy or a RINO. He's doing the best he can under the circumstances, which haven't been ideal for Republican since 2006. I hope you are a well paid shill. How does that .gov/corporate boot taste? ........something about majorities in both chambers...............blah, blah They don't have a supermajority to overcome vetoes,. They have enough in the House to stop funding on anything. They don't. That is telling .... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 11:39:08 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm aware of that. Override what? He's had to veto a whole 4 bills. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And 67 to override. That is what he's talking about. I'm aware of that. Override what? He's had to veto a whole 4 bills. And therein lies the heart of the problem. He hasn't even had anything to veto. Mitch refuses to go on the offensive and appears to cave at any advance from the Ds. Boner as well to a lesser degree. We elected them to stop O's bullshit and instead, they have taken all the momentum we gave them at the ballot box and given it right back to the Ds with their refusal to go on offense and the surrender to basically anything O has put out since the election. Christ, it could be argued that more derp has been heaped on us since the election than at any time since passage of healthcare. They have made what should have been an ineffectual lame duck POTUS relevant and not only allowed, but facilitated him to continue his reign of derp until January 2017. That's what has people so fucking pissed. And rightly so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 11:39:33 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perry had been at it a decade, how long has Cruz held an elected office? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you liked Cruz's speech donate to his campaign. That's what did after watching his RINO bash. The murmuring is Cruz thinks Texas elected him to free up his time for a run at President. Did Rick think the same 4 years ago? Perry had been at it a decade, how long has Cruz held an elected office? Perry used to be a democrat - has Cruz ever been a democrat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:07:39 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why people don't give a shit? I'll tell you one of the reasons why. My coworker just told me all about the Taylor Swift, Nikki Manaj Twitter drama and how other "stars" got in on it and picked sides. As soon as she was done explaining it to me I asked her who was the Speaker of the House. Blank face and she admitted that she didn't know. But I bet she voted which begs the question who did she vote for? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:12:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perry had been at it a decade, how long has Cruz held an elected office? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you liked Cruz's speech donate to his campaign. That's what did after watching his RINO bash. The murmuring is Cruz thinks Texas elected him to free up his time for a run at President. Did Rick think the same 4 years ago? Perry had been at it a decade, how long has Cruz held an elected office? 1.) Career politicians are the problem, not the solution. 2.) If you've been at the job long enough it's OK to blow it off for another job prospect? 3.) If Texas told anybody to consider running for something else, it was Dewhurst who got that message. 4.) My point wasn't to slam Perry, but rather to point out that it's both common and accepted. I not a hater. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:21:59 PM EDT
[#10]
I like Cruz and Perry both and would vote for either of them in the General. The fundamental difference between them is Perry is willing to kiss the ring of the movers and shakers and he is not going to undertake any kind of reform that they oppose. On the other hand, Perry can actually take disparate groups and get them working together. He is a consumate politician in that regard.
Cruz on the other hand is coming in with a wrecking ball. If you are tired of being promised reform and getting so little change that you barely notice it against the other things you lost during the same time, Cruz and Paul are basically the only candidates who have made a commitment to massive reform. The flip side there is neither one of them have a good track record of getting cooperation. Both of them are outsiders in their own party. If you put them in power, they will have zero cooperation from Congress. Having said that, considerng the festering scum of villainy that the unelected bureaucracy has become, an Executive could still have a good effect if they concentrated on that part of the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:28:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Misleading claptrap Democrats took Congress in 2006. By 9/07 Bush vetoed 3. One from Reid/ Pelosi. Obama vetoed Keystone and Obama's executive regulatory Union "Card Check" from this Congress. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They don't have a supermajority to overcome vetoes,. Let me help you: Jimmy Carter 13 regular vetoes and 18 pocket vetoes. Ronald Regan 39 regular vetoes and 39 pocket vetoes. George H.W. Bush 29 regular vetoes and 15 pocket vetoes. Bill Clinton 36 regular vetoes and 1 pocket veto. George W. Bush 11 regular vetoes and 1 pocket veto. Barack Hussein Obama 4 regular vetoes. Now what do you glean from the information above? Misleading claptrap Democrats took Congress in 2006. By 9/07 Bush vetoed 3. One from Reid/ Pelosi. Obama vetoed Keystone and Obama's executive regulatory Union "Card Check" from this Congress. Truth is hard to refute - isn't it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:34:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL...Ted Cruz is about, well, Ted Cruz. There are two reasons he did what he did other than just being peevish. #1....He needed to breakout a bit from the pack to be included in next month's debates. #2....He needed to raise mo money. Even after sacrificing any real future in the Senate he's still tied at 7th with Rand Paul. He did pick-up 15 million from the billionaire Wilks brothers (worth 3 billion) that he will be beholden to. 36M of the 38M Cruz has on hand has been donated by four mega donors.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think Ted Cruz did the right thing. Good on him. He is hated because he exposes the bullshit. Yep, He's not part of the establishment the status quo they all like in DC. LOL...Ted Cruz is about, well, Ted Cruz. There are two reasons he did what he did other than just being peevish. #1....He needed to breakout a bit from the pack to be included in next month's debates. #2....He needed to raise mo money. Even after sacrificing any real future in the Senate he's still tied at 7th with Rand Paul. He did pick-up 15 million from the billionaire Wilks brothers (worth 3 billion) that he will be beholden to. 36M of the 38M Cruz has on hand has been donated by four mega donors.
Rand Paul raised 7M so far. 14M since 2010. Does this mean Paul and Cruz are quid pro quo corrupted, bought and paid for by special interests, big money lobbyists, freedom minded individuals that pool their money in corporate Trusts, Koch bros, Wilks bros, ALEC, crony capitalists, america’s liberty pac, cigar smoke filled back room DC establishment status quo shot callers citizens united, club for growth, marijuana policy project pac, k street banksters, Right-to-Work Committees, Right to Life pac? The NRA for example. That's the sleazy insinuations of Democrats, Donald Trump, democrat shills and the progressive left. In fact Clinton and Sanders are running on gun control and overturning Free speech. Obviously Heller and McDonald. Hillary Clinton’s litmus test for Supreme Court nominees: a pledge to overturn Citizens United Clinton’s pledge to use opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees echoes the stance taken by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is challenging her for the Democratic nomination. Democratic 2012 Platform Calls for Reinstating Federal Assault Weapons Ban |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:37:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dude - you think this is bad? Step into a global warming thread sometime .... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is it just me or are the liberal Statists really outing themselves lately on here? It's like they just can't help it Dude - you think this is bad? Step into a global warming thread sometime .... or any hunting/animal killing thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:40:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perry had been at it a decade, how long has Cruz held an elected office? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you liked Cruz's speech donate to his campaign. That's what did after watching his RINO bash. The murmuring is Cruz thinks Texas elected him to free up his time for a run at President. Did Rick think the same 4 years ago? Perry had been at it a decade, how long has Cruz held an elected office? No one is going to get to tell you what to do, but are you sure you want to inject your company name into a political debate? You're relationship with Perry is well known, and I'm sure he's a nice guy on a personal level. But what is there to gain by starting a Perry vs. whomever argument? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:41:50 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because incrementalism. We've slowly been conditioned to accept that we are ruled, not governed. Ask any number of your republican friends how they feel about the .gov listening to their phone conversations, reading their texts and emails, and I'd wager that most will say something along the lines "if you're not doing anything wrong/i have nothing to hide, or I don't give a shit about that." Most people don't understand how the fucking the .gov is giving them actually affects their lives. They don't understand that they're supposed to have the power, not the .gov. I guess the best way to sum it up is, most people don't give a shit as long as they have on demand necessities and entertainment. ETA: And those of us who do understand how its supposed to work, are to cowardly to stand up and fight. I hope that changes soon though, because the longer this shit drags on, the weaker our side is going to get. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Has the Majority Leader denied that any of that happened? Is the GOP pissed because he let the cat out of the bag and didn't STFU like all the other cowards on the (R) aisle in the Senate? Why don't more people give a shit? Because incrementalism. We've slowly been conditioned to accept that we are ruled, not governed. Ask any number of your republican friends how they feel about the .gov listening to their phone conversations, reading their texts and emails, and I'd wager that most will say something along the lines "if you're not doing anything wrong/i have nothing to hide, or I don't give a shit about that." Most people don't understand how the fucking the .gov is giving them actually affects their lives. They don't understand that they're supposed to have the power, not the .gov. I guess the best way to sum it up is, most people don't give a shit as long as they have on demand necessities and entertainment. ETA: And those of us who do understand how its supposed to work, are to cowardly to stand up and fight. I hope that changes soon though, because the longer this shit drags on, the weaker our side is going to get. Cowardly? OK mister hero, you stick your head up above that trench. Those behind you will follow.... As long as they're not covered in brain matter half a second after you pop up. It's called knowing your enemies and picking your battles. What good did you do when the newspaper reads "lone terrorist brought to justice swiftly by Glorious People's Peace Forces!," and 51% of the population is stupid enough to believe the propaganda? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:46:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Truth is hard to refute - isn't it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They don't have a supermajority to overcome vetoes,. Let me help you: Jimmy Carter 13 regular vetoes and 18 pocket vetoes. Ronald Regan 39 regular vetoes and 39 pocket vetoes. George H.W. Bush 29 regular vetoes and 15 pocket vetoes. Bill Clinton 36 regular vetoes and 1 pocket veto. George W. Bush 11 regular vetoes and 1 pocket veto. Barack Hussein Obama 4 regular vetoes. Now what do you glean from the information above? Misleading claptrap Democrats took Congress in 2006. By 9/07 Bush vetoed 3. One from Reid/ Pelosi. Obama vetoed Keystone and Obama's executive regulatory Union "Card Check" from this Congress. Truth is hard to refute - isn't it. The truth is Democrats controlled the Senate since 01/07. By 07/30/07 Bush vetoed 3 total and TWO from the newly seated Democrat Congress. George W. Bush July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed). May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110–28 with the President's approval. June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. No override attempt made. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:46:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one is going to get to tell you what to do, but are you sure you want to inject your company name into a political debate? You're relationship with Perry is well known, and I'm sure he's a nice guy on a personal level. But what is there to gain by starting a Perry vs. whomever argument? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you liked Cruz's speech donate to his campaign. That's what did after watching his RINO bash. The murmuring is Cruz thinks Texas elected him to free up his time for a run at President. Did Rick think the same 4 years ago? Perry had been at it a decade, how long has Cruz held an elected office? No one is going to get to tell you what to do, but are you sure you want to inject your company name into a political debate? You're relationship with Perry is well known, and I'm sure he's a nice guy on a personal level. But what is there to gain by starting a Perry vs. whomever argument? Who injected what here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:52:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who injected what here? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The murmuring is Cruz thinks Texas elected him to free up his time for a run at President. Did Rick think the same 4 years ago? Perry had been at it a decade, how long has Cruz held an elected office? No one is going to get to tell you what to do, but are you sure you want to inject your company name into a political debate? You're relationship with Perry is well known, and I'm sure he's a nice guy on a personal level. But what is there to gain by starting a Perry vs. whomever argument? Who injected what here? Don't get me wrong here, I'm a fan just like Dillehayd above. Just sayin'...you're using the official company account to post subjective support in a political thread. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 12:55:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Perry would be a far better candidate (and president) than Cruz.
First of all, Cruz cannot possibly win a debate... not a televised presidential debate, since a debate of this sort is not a legal proceeding. The purpose of a presidential debate is not to subdue your opponent with rhetorical brilliance and irrefutable logic. Its purpose is to make voters more likely to vote for you than vote for your opponent. Cruz is the sort of guy that the more you listen to, the less you want to hear. Sure he might be "right" and he's certainly brilliant. But his pedantic diatribes come off as extremely didactic. (see what I did there?) He'd be a great AG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:00:28 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perry would be a far better candidate (and president) than Cruz. First of all, Cruz cannot possibly win a debate... not a televised presidential debate, since a debate of this sort is not a legal proceeding. The purpose of a presidential debate is not to subdue your opponent with rhetorical brilliance and irrefutable logic. Its purpose is to make voters more likely to vote for you than vote for your opponent. Cruz is the sort of guy that the more you listen to, the less you want to hear. Sure he might be "right" and he's certainly brilliant. But his pedantic diatribes come off as extremely didactic. (see what I did there?) He'd be a great AG. I haven't seen Cruz in a debate yet; have you? I have seen him, as you apparently have, in settings where flowing and endless rhetoric is to be expected. I'd like to see what he can do with 30-60 seconds to answer - to your point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:01:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I haven't seen Cruz in a debate yet; have you? I have seen him, as you apparently have, in settings where flowing and endless rhetoric is to be expected. I'd like to see what he can do with 30-60 seconds to answer - to your point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Perry would be a far better candidate (and president) than Cruz. First of all, Cruz cannot possibly win a debate... not a televised presidential debate, since a debate of this sort is not a legal proceeding. The purpose of a presidential debate is not to subdue your opponent with rhetorical brilliance and irrefutable logic. Its purpose is to make voters more likely to vote for you than vote for your opponent. Cruz is the sort of guy that the more you listen to, the less you want to hear. Sure he might be "right" and he's certainly brilliant. But his pedantic diatribes come off as extremely didactic. (see what I did there?) He'd be a great AG. I haven't seen Cruz in a debate yet; have you? I have seen him, as you apparently have, in settings where flowing and endless rhetoric is to be expected. I'd like to see what he can do with 30-60 seconds to answer - to your point. Here's a preview 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:02:47 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It takes 60 votes to override a veto. They do not have that. I suggest you look at how many threats to veto Obama has made. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I were a US Senator and someone made a statement to me that was so monumental it influenced the way I was going to vote I'd have gone to that person or their office and asked for the statement in writing if they wanted my vote. If I didn't get written assurances I'd either abstain or vote against the measure. When people speak with one another sometimes there can be miscommunications it doesn't always necessarily mean someone intended to be untruthful. Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." I think that's good advice. There is a way to handle things and there is a way NOT to handle things. Going to the press and pulling a "he said, she said" argument is pretty worthless frankly. I don't think the Majority Leader is a bad guy or a RINO. He's doing the best he can under the circumstances, which haven't been ideal for Republican since 2006. I hope you are a well paid shill. How does that .gov/corporate boot taste? ........something about majorities in both chambers...............blah, blah They don't have a supermajority to overcome vetoes,. Let me help you: Jimmy Carter 13 regular vetoes and 18 pocket vetoes. Ronald Regan 39 regular vetoes and 39 pocket vetoes. George H.W. Bush 29 regular vetoes and 15 pocket vetoes. Bill Clinton 36 regular vetoes and 1 pocket veto. George W. Bush 11 regular vetoes and 1 pocket veto. Barack Hussein Obama 4 regular vetoes. Now what do you glean from the information above? It takes 60 votes to override a veto. They do not have that. I suggest you look at how many threats to veto Obama has made. So what? Pass them and make him really veto them. Then beat his party over the head with his vetoes of bills The People supported. McTurtle should stay far away from poker tables, because he doesn't have the balls to call an obvious bluff. What those stats tell me is that the Congress only passes bills that are a lock to be signed - so basically exactly what the Emperor wants to see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:08:05 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cruz's behavior is what every true conservative should have been doing for the last 25 years. Very few Republicans refuse to fight for conservative ideals once elected and just become status quo Washington RINOcrat zombies. Many of us rage about the lack of guts and fight in the Republican Party and Cruz has it. Cruz acted like a PATRIOT not unlike many of founding fathers of our country. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cruz did the right thing and now he's going to pay for it. To be honest his behavior was something I would expect from FBHO or one of his minions. Cruz acted in a petulant/peevish manner. For speaking out against the establishment fucktards? If he hadn't done it on the Senate floor, it would have been completely ignored. Look who is running to the turtle's defense: McCain, Hatch and Cornyn. Cruz's behavior is what every true conservative should have been doing for the last 25 years. Very few Republicans refuse to fight for conservative ideals once elected and just become status quo Washington RINOcrat zombies. Many of us rage about the lack of guts and fight in the Republican Party and Cruz has it. Cruz acted like a PATRIOT not unlike many of founding fathers of our country. This. Even if its political suicide he stood on principle and called out that piece of shit. If more of the R party demonstrated the principles and balls to stand up for them that Cruz does our country wouldn't be the pathetic shadow of its former self that it currently is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:11:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like Cruz and Perry both and would vote for either of them in the General. The fundamental difference between them is Perry is willing to kiss the ring of the movers and shakers and he is not going to undertake any kind of reform that they oppose. On the other hand, Perry can actually take disparate groups and get them working together. He is a consumate politician in that regard. Cruz on the other hand is coming in with a wrecking ball. If you are tired of being promised reform and getting so little change that you barely notice it against the other things you lost during the same time, Cruz and Paul are basically the only candidates who have made a commitment to massive reform. The flip side there is neither one of them have a good track record of getting cooperation. Both of them are outsiders in their own party. If you put them in power, they will have zero cooperation from Congress. Having said that, considerng the festering scum of villainy that the unelected bureaucracy has become, an Executive could still have a good effect if they concentrated on that part of the government. Yeah, but every House member and about a third of the Senate are up for election in 2016 too. Get real conservatives, not just Campaign Conservatives of the ilk of Boner and McTurtle, elected along with Cruz and we'll start to see some significant corrections. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:20:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Go Cruz!  Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:25:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what? Pass them and make him really veto them. Then beat his party over the head with his vetoes of bills The People supported. McTurtle should stay far away from poker tables, because he doesn't have the balls to call an obvious bluff. What those stats tell me is that the Congress only passes bills that are a lock to be signed - so basically exactly what the Emperor wants to see. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It takes 60 votes to override a veto. They do not have that. I suggest you look at how many threats to veto Obama has made. So what? Pass them and make him really veto them. Then beat his party over the head with his vetoes of bills The People supported. McTurtle should stay far away from poker tables, because he doesn't have the balls to call an obvious bluff. What those stats tell me is that the Congress only passes bills that are a lock to be signed - so basically exactly what the Emperor wants to see. Name 6 democrats that will vote for: H.R. 427: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015 Just for LOL ...... name one? Mcturtle? No surprise seeing staunch pro 2nd Amendment NRA A+ denigrated with leftwing nutjob DU buzzwords. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:36:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but every House member and about a third of the Senate are up for election in 2016 too. Get real conservatives, not just Campaign Conservatives of the ilk of Boner and McTurtle, elected along with Cruz and we'll start to see some significant corrections. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I like Cruz and Perry both and would vote for either of them in the General. The fundamental difference between them is Perry is willing to kiss the ring of the movers and shakers and he is not going to undertake any kind of reform that they oppose. On the other hand, Perry can actually take disparate groups and get them working together. He is a consumate politician in that regard. Cruz on the other hand is coming in with a wrecking ball. If you are tired of being promised reform and getting so little change that you barely notice it against the other things you lost during the same time, Cruz and Paul are basically the only candidates who have made a commitment to massive reform. The flip side there is neither one of them have a good track record of getting cooperation. Both of them are outsiders in their own party. If you put them in power, they will have zero cooperation from Congress. Having said that, considerng the festering scum of villainy that the unelected bureaucracy has become, an Executive could still have a good effect if they concentrated on that part of the government. Yeah, but every House member and about a third of the Senate are up for election in 2016 too. Get real conservatives, not just Campaign Conservatives of the ilk of Boner and McTurtle, elected along with Cruz and we'll start to see some significant corrections. Sure, if we do that you'll see change. We aren't going to do that in this election because the necessary campaign funding network and candidates that need to be in place right now aren't there. In fact, the Chamber of Commerce and their ideological allies are executing a very determined, long-term plan to push back and further reduce the numbers this term. On the plus side, 15 years ago, there was maybe one Representative in the House who would even pretend to give lip service to the Constitution. Today, we have at least 38 - and another 3-6 in the Senate (the epitome of the good ol' boys network). If the next 15 years show that same kind of growth, you are looking at real and substantial change. To me, the biggest problem is the amount of power concentrated in the unelected bureaucracy and Executive. It is going to take a special individual to start dismantling that system; because at the same time they'll be reducing their own power to change the system. I'm extremely skeptical Perry is that kind of executive. I'm not all that sure Cruz is either; but I've got some hope for him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 1:40:42 PM EDT
[#28]
I like how telling the American people the truth about their corrupt leaders is now a sign that you aren't "ready for prime time". I think it's just the opposite. McConnel isn't ready for prime time. He's a liar and a traitor to his own message to the voters of KY. F that POS and long live Ted Cruz. I support him in every way. The establishment Republicans make me want to fucking puke.
Also, I disagree with the notion that prez Cruz would get no help from congress. Reagan was the enemy of the establishment GOP and he dragged them kicking and screaming to many a vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 2:02:23 PM EDT
[#29]
More "hidden" statism and bullshit from many that peruse GD.
If you think Cruz is in the wrong, then you might be a statist. If you think McConnel should have been dealt with in a more official, "senate sanctioned" way, then you might be a statist. If you're upset at a Tea Party Senator from Texas calling out the establishment, then you might be a statist. Once again, GD wants to play the "chess not checkers game". Except for the fact that the establishment and the democrats are one and the same and no game is being played, just pockets being lined and drinks to be had among old friends. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 2:18:37 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perry would be a far better candidate (and president) than Cruz. First of all, Cruz cannot possibly win a debate... not a televised presidential debate, since a debate of this sort is not a legal proceeding. The purpose of a presidential debate is not to subdue your opponent with rhetorical brilliance and irrefutable logic. Its purpose is to make voters more likely to vote for you than vote for your opponent. Cruz is the sort of guy that the more you listen to, the less you want to hear. Sure he might be "right" and he's certainly brilliant. But his pedantic diatribes come off as extremely didactic. (see what I did there?) He'd be a great AG. I could not disagree with you more. I love listening to Cruz dish out the butt hurt. I want Cruz as President and Trey Gowdy as AG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 2:52:21 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More "hidden" statism and bullshit from many that peruse GD. If you think Cruz is in the wrong, then you might be a statist. If you think McConnel should have been dealt with in a more official, "senate sanctioned" way, then you might be a statist. If you're upset at a Tea Party Senator from Texas calling out the establishment, then you might be a statist. Once again, GD wants to play the "chess not checkers game". Except for the fact that the establishment and the democrats are one and the same and no game is being played, just pockets being lined and drinks to be had among old friends. I supported Cruz both with my vote, action and money for his Senate and Presidential campaign; but he has been wrong and will continue to be wrong. Look at the Newtown debate - Cruz took the position that any gun control legislation should be filibustered in the Senate. That was the honest approach. The straight-up, walk the walk, talk the talk approach. He called the GOP "squishies" for failing to support the filibuster. However, that approach had two big failings from a classic politics view. First of all, it shifted the focus from the Democrats who didn't want to make that vote and put it on the Republicans. Second, if followed by the GOP, we would never get a record vote. Shitbags socialists like Bernie Sanders could point to their moderate record on guns as a state politician in a gun-friendly state and not be held accountable for their extreme gun-banning viewpoints.. Cruz took the Ned Stark approach to gun rights - righteous; but probably not going to be successful long term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 2:56:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I supported Cruz both with my vote, action and money for his Senate and Presidential campaign; but he has been wrong and will continue to be wrong. Look at the Newtown debate - Cruz took the position that any gun control legislation should be filibustered in the Senate. That was the honest approach. The straight-up, walk the walk, talk the talk approach. He called the GOP "squishies" for failing to support the filibuster. However, that approach had two big failings from a classic politics view. First of all, it shifted the focus from the Democrats who didn't want to make that vote and put it on the Republicans. Second, if followed by the GOP, we would never get a record vote. Shitbags socialists like Bernie Sanders could point to their moderate record on guns as a state politician in a gun-friendly state and not be held accountable for their extreme gun-banning viewpoints.. Cruz took the Ned Stark approach to gun rights - righteous; but probably not going to be successful long term. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
More "hidden" statism and bullshit from many that peruse GD. If you think Cruz is in the wrong, then you might be a statist. If you think McConnel should have been dealt with in a more official, "senate sanctioned" way, then you might be a statist. If you're upset at a Tea Party Senator from Texas calling out the establishment, then you might be a statist. Once again, GD wants to play the "chess not checkers game". Except for the fact that the establishment and the democrats are one and the same and no game is being played, just pockets being lined and drinks to be had among old friends. I supported Cruz both with my vote, action and money for his Senate and Presidential campaign; but he has been wrong and will continue to be wrong. Look at the Newtown debate - Cruz took the position that any gun control legislation should be filibustered in the Senate. That was the honest approach. The straight-up, walk the walk, talk the talk approach. He called the GOP "squishies" for failing to support the filibuster. However, that approach had two big failings from a classic politics view. First of all, it shifted the focus from the Democrats who didn't want to make that vote and put it on the Republicans. Second, if followed by the GOP, we would never get a record vote. Shitbags socialists like Bernie Sanders could point to their moderate record on guns as a state politician in a gun-friendly state and not be held accountable for their extreme gun-banning viewpoints.. Cruz took the Ned Stark approach to gun rights - righteous; but probably not going to be successful long term. I hear what you are saying. But I also appreciate that Cruz is trying to take the nuance out of politics, and play straight up. It is refreshing, and I think one of the reasons he has the support he does. I would also counter that I am quite sure he knows what kind of game he's playing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 2:56:35 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To be honest his behavior was something I would expect from FBHO or one of his minions. Cruz acted in a petulant/peevish manner.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cruz did the right thing and now he's going to pay for it. To be honest his behavior was something I would expect from FBHO or one of his minions. Cruz acted in a petulant/peevish manner.
Or perhaps someone who is fed up with the BS. The reason I didn't know what this was about is because I've abstained from all BS......ALL OF IT. I no longer watch TV or get "political news". It's all BS. This country is wrecked. It's not going "down the drain". It has been completely flushed. We are 10 feet deep in the sewer already. You cannot fix it. It's beyond "fixing". There is only balkanization or total submitting to the "State". Sorry. America died when no one was looking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 3:16:46 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More "hidden" statism and bullshit from many that peruse GD. If you think Cruz is in the wrong, then you might be a statist. If you think McConnel should have been dealt with in a more official, "senate sanctioned" way, then you might be a statist. If you're upset at a Tea Party Senator from Texas calling out the establishment, then you might be a statist. Once again, GD wants to play the "chess not checkers game". Except for the fact that the establishment and the democrats are one and the same and no game is being played, just pockets being lined and drinks to be had among old friends. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 3:34:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hear what you are saying. But I also appreciate that Cruz is trying to take the nuance out of politics, and play straight up. It is refreshing, and I think one of the reasons he has the support he does. I would also counter that I am quite sure he knows what kind of game he's playing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
More "hidden" statism and bullshit from many that peruse GD. If you think Cruz is in the wrong, then you might be a statist. If you think McConnel should have been dealt with in a more official, "senate sanctioned" way, then you might be a statist. If you're upset at a Tea Party Senator from Texas calling out the establishment, then you might be a statist. Once again, GD wants to play the "chess not checkers game". Except for the fact that the establishment and the democrats are one and the same and no game is being played, just pockets being lined and drinks to be had among old friends. I supported Cruz both with my vote, action and money for his Senate and Presidential campaign; but he has been wrong and will continue to be wrong. Look at the Newtown debate - Cruz took the position that any gun control legislation should be filibustered in the Senate. That was the honest approach. The straight-up, walk the walk, talk the talk approach. He called the GOP "squishies" for failing to support the filibuster. However, that approach had two big failings from a classic politics view. First of all, it shifted the focus from the Democrats who didn't want to make that vote and put it on the Republicans. Second, if followed by the GOP, we would never get a record vote. Shitbags socialists like Bernie Sanders could point to their moderate record on guns as a state politician in a gun-friendly state and not be held accountable for their extreme gun-banning viewpoints.. Cruz took the Ned Stark approach to gun rights - righteous; but probably not going to be successful long term. I hear what you are saying. But I also appreciate that Cruz is trying to take the nuance out of politics, and play straight up. It is refreshing, and I think one of the reasons he has the support he does. I would also counter that I am quite sure he knows what kind of game he's playing. Yeah, I like it too - that's why I donated to him. And he isn't stupid by any means. I'm sure he has a strategy oriented around the straight-up approach; but it is another good example of the difference between him and Perry. Perry would have let the gun control vote happen and counted on the House to backstop it if something went horribly wrong in the Senate. He would have gone the traditional route. FWIW, I think that is what people like about Trump also - the lack of nuance - though in Trump's case I think it is more about brand management than any serious political beliefs. If you look at Cruz's history - he is a true believer. He is the anti-Obama. Like Obama, he aims to fundamentally transform the U.S. government but in a much different direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2015 4:14:35 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or perhaps someone who is fed up with the BS. The reason I didn't know what this was about is because I've abstained from all BS......ALL OF IT. I no longer watch TV or get "political news". It's all BS. This country is wrecked. It's not going "down the drain". It has been completely flushed. We are 10 feet deep in the sewer already. You cannot fix it. It's beyond "fixing". There is only balkanization or total submitting to the "State". Sorry. America died when no one was looking. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cruz did the right thing and now he's going to pay for it. To be honest his behavior was something I would expect from FBHO or one of his minions. Cruz acted in a petulant/peevish manner.
Or perhaps someone who is fed up with the BS. The reason I didn't know what this was about is because I've abstained from all BS......ALL OF IT. I no longer watch TV or get "political news". It's all BS. This country is wrecked. It's not going "down the drain". It has been completely flushed. We are 10 feet deep in the sewer already. You cannot fix it. It's beyond "fixing". There is only balkanization or total submitting to the "State". Sorry. America died when no one was looking. That's not entirely true. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness - Declaration of Independence First, that there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people.
That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution. - James Madison The liberty tree is thirsty. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
