Palin: McCain Campaign Forbid Me From Talking About Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers

[AuH20]

Two wings of the same bird. McCain was to take the fall in the 3rd round. ;):D

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/27/sarah-palin-mccain-campaign-banned-me-from-talking-about-jeremiah-wright-and-bill-ayers/

As if you didn't need any more clues. Somebody should have told Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTMloaj6b68

[compromise]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34phsb4e6Eg

[amy31416]

Too bad they didn't forbid her from talking. Period.

[enhanced_deficit]

I forbid Palin to take orders from McCain handlers again.

McCain handlers also did not want some supporter guy to use Obama's full name Barack Hussein Obama on stage, wtf was that about? McCain seems to have some racially motivated policies stances.

[compromise]

Too bad they didn't forbid her from talking. Period.

She was the voice of sanity and hope in the McCain campaign.

[compromise]

McCain handlers also did not want some supporter guy to use Obama's full name Barack Hussein Obama on stage, wtf was that about? McCain seems to have some racially motivated policies stances.

http://commonsenseconspiracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/obama-mccain.jpg

[enhanced_deficit]

They is money-brothers which is euphemism for political prostitutes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTMloaj6b68[/QUOTE]

Did McCain just engage in hate-speech when he seemed to say that "No mam, he (Obama) is a decent man, he is not (an arab)" ?

McCain has never seemed bothered by horrific impact Iraq war bloodbath had on Iraqi population, maybe some journalist in free media can probe him with some arab questions to see his views on racial equality even if media masters will probably squirm at such reporting if turned out he agrees with such stereotypes as the young lady in the crowd displayed.



Speaking of Wright and Ayers, Obama Pastor of 20 years Rev Wright PhD now thinks Obama is a plant of bankers/zionists etc and his former Pal Bill Ayers says this:

Bill Ayers: Obama Should Be Tried For War Crimes - Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/bill-ayers-obama-war-crimes_n_3461319.html)Jun 18, 2013 - Bill Ayers, former University of Illinois professor and co-founder of the violent anti-war group Weather Underground, said Tuesday that ...

[cajuncocoa]

She was the voice of sanity and hope in the McCain campaign.

There wasn't any sanity and/or hope to speak of in the McCain campaign....it was pretty sorry all around.

[Christian Liberty]

Too bad they didn't forbid her from talking. Period.


She was the voice of sanity and hope in the McCain campaign.


There wasn't any sanity and/or hope to speak of in the McCain campaign....it was pretty sorry all around.

Well, I agree with you, Cajuncocoa. That said, comparing Palin to McCain is like comparing a generic soldier to Chris Kyle. They're both bad, yes, but one is likely ignorant and not nearly as evil as the other.

I wouldn't have voted for Palin, but I'd actually prefer her over Obama. And its not even close. I can't say the same for McCain.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I agree with you, Cajuncocoa. That said, comparing Palin to McCain is like comparing a generic soldier to Chris Kyle. They're both bad, yes, but one is likely ignorant and not nearly as evil as the other.

I wouldn't have voted for Palin, but I'd actually prefer her over Obama. And its not even close. I can't say the same for McCain.

Meaning, considering the assumption that I could have voted in 2008, and that I actually held the views I had now in 2008. Neither of which is the case.

[liveandletlive]

She's coming around I guess. But I still think she's a flake

[ObiRandKenobi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTMloaj6b68

LOL!

[anaconda]

Too bad they didn't forbid her from talking. Period.

LOL

[anaconda]

She's coming around I guess. But I still think she's a flake

I'm betting she would have a very excellent voting record if were she to become a senator. I think she would make a B-line for the Paul/Cruz/Lee caucus.

[juleswin]

I forbid Palin to take orders from McCain handlers again.

McCain handlers also did not want some supporter guy to use Obama's full name Barack Hussein Obama on stage, wtf was that about? McCain seems to have some racially motivated policies stances.

Maybe he wanted to beat him on the issues? That is more respectable than throwing ad hominem attacks that has nothing to do with this presidency.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm betting she would have a very excellent voting record if were she to become a senator. I think she would make a B-line for the Paul/Cruz/Lee caucus.

I think she might be better than Cruz. Although that's more "Baseline standard" for me than anyone else. Ted Cruz sucks.

I'd give her a shot in the senate.

[juleswin]

Too bad they didn't forbid her from talking. Period.

Yea, cos we can all see the influence of Rev. Wright in his administrations policies. Talking about the dangers of foreign interventions, the monetary system, welfare both corporate and social would have been 1000x better than talking about the Rev. Wright

[enhanced_deficit]

Maybe he wanted to beat him on the issues? That is more respectable than throwing ad hominem attacks that has nothing to do with this presidency.

How is saying someone's given name an "attack"? Obama read his name on stage while taking oath in front of millions, was he attacking himself?

There seems to be a problem in America or perhaps with typicaal GOP crowd, maybe that is what libs tried to cure in their infinite wisdom by putting this dufus in the WH.

[CPUd]

How is saying someone's given name an "attack"? Obama read his name on stage while taking oath in front of millions, was he attacking himself?

There seems to be a problem in America or perhaps with typicaal GOP crowd, maybe that is what libs tried to cure in their infinite wisdom by putting this dufus in the WH.

It is because here in the US, Hussein is associated with Saddam Hussein, who the previous administration had spent hours of media time talking about how he is the most dangerous terrorist in the world; when "Saddam Hussein" came out of their mouths, it was usually followed by the threat of war.

Same thing with "Osama". These GOP had enough sense not to open up that can of worms.

In 2012, we did see the appeal to racists again (as explained below), except the code words were "entitlements", "handouts", etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVpjruzfSKQ

[Ender]

She was the voice of sanity and hope in the McCain campaign.

This is sarcasm, I hope.

[HOLLYWOOD]

It's a game... hasn't anyone told Palin?
http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/files/2008/10/l99881-100.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=fhRbO985VNOvxM&tbnid=-FxVsl8MtkhFqM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftucsoncitizen.com%2Fmorgue%2F2008 %2F10%2F17%2Fpage%2F9%2F&ei=TQX2UYHzJsmLiAKUtYCgCg&bvm=bv.49784469,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNGxVlMqDKFwGiQWJtxS9YLSFD5xfg&ust=1375164110111098)

[LibertyEagle]

This is sarcasm, I hope.

Not really. She's at least not evil like the others were. Too easily led around, yes.

That's my view, anyway.

[Cleaner44]

Fuck Palin. She is a stupid author that did not even have the guts to endorse Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich and the like. She would have made huge news if she would have back Ron in 2011/2012 but she was a big pussy that just wanted to make sure she didn't blow her gig at FOX News.

[LibertyEagle]

Fuck Palin. She is a stupid author that did not even have the guts to endorse Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich and the like. She would have made huge news if she would have back Ron in 2011/2012 but she was a big pussy that just wanted to make sure she didn't blow her gig at FOX News.

One, I don't think they can endorse anyone if they are employed by the networks and two, maybe she didn't agree with him on his portrayal of his foreign policy.

[compromise]

One, I don't think they can endorse anyone if they are employed by the networks and two, maybe she didn't agree with him on his portrayal of his foreign policy.

Joe Miller and Mark Sanford also weren't allowed to endorse because of the networks they were employed by.

[amy31416]

Fuck Palin. She is a stupid author that did not even have the guts to endorse Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich and the like. She would have made huge news if she would have back Ron in 2011/2012 but she was a big pussy that just wanted to make sure she didn't blow her gig at FOX News.

Indeed she is a coward and wanted to capitalize on her former popularity. I put her in the same category as Glenn Beck.

[parocks]

Not really. She's at least not evil like the others were. Too easily led around, yes.

That's my view, anyway.

Am in favor of Palin.

[Todd]

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/a/O/2/mccain-palin-tongue.jpg

[compromise]

Indeed she is a coward and wanted to capitalize on her former popularity. I put her in the same category as Glenn Beck.

Can you show me where she insulted Ron? She has always only had praise for him.

[Christian Liberty]

Not really. She's at least not evil like the others were. Too easily led around, yes.

That's my view, anyway.

Yeah, I agree.

I'd still never want her as President, she'd be too easy to manipulate, but as you said, at least she's not evil. I could say she was the voice of sanity for the McCain campaign... comparatively speaking.

But at the end of the day, at best, she's on par with Mike Lee. Maybe not even that. Which is to say, I'd give her a chance in the senate, sure, but she isn't great.


One, I don't think they can endorse anyone if they are employed by the networks and two, maybe she didn't agree with him on his portrayal of his foreign policy.

She doesn't. She's not a total neocon, I don't think, but I don't think she's a true noninterventionist either.


Can you show me where she insulted Ron? She has always only had praise for him.

AFAIK this is true, which made Walter Block say all kinds of positive things about her that made other libertarians upset, not realizing he was making only a comparative judgment, and trying to shame Bob Barr and the LP.

That said, being a nice person and giving positive feedback doesn't mean she actually agrees with all of his positions.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

She was the voice of sanity and hope in the McCain campaign.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhXz60f0HLU

There was nothing she did or said during that campaign that was beneficial to advancing libertarian ideals.

[klamath]

I don't think she is that smart and a little to ambitious but I would vote for her over probably 40% of the posters on here. Religious support of Israel and all she has more freedom views than that 40%.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think she is that smart and a little to ambitious but I would vote for her over probably 40% of the posters on here. Religious support of Israel and all she has more freedom views than that 40%.

Who?

I can only think of one poster who I'd vote for Palin over on here...

[klamath]

Who?

I can only think of one poster who I'd vote for Palin over on here...
Try the Pro abortionists. I am not likely to view them as ANYWHERE near profreedom. When 1 Million people are killed a year just in this country it eclipses any war we have ever been in in our entire history. That is by far worse than Neoconservatism, and Palin is NOT a neoconservative.

[erowe1]

She was the voice of sanity and hope in the McCain campaign.

How? She just parroted everything McCain said.

[jbauer]

This is interesting for what it does for Rand in 16. Assuming he wins the nomination will there be constraints by GOP management on what he can do or say?

[pcosmar]

She was the voice of sanity and hope in the McCain campaign.

She was the lipstick on the pig.

[Christian Liberty]

Try the Pro abortionists. I am not likely to view them as ANYWHERE near profreedom. When 1 Million people are killed a year just in this country it eclipses any war we have ever been in in our entire history. That is by far worse than Neoconservatism, and Palin is NOT a neoconservative.

I'm honestly more concerned with the people who the State is actually killing, and the erosion of our rights, than I am of murder that just so happens to be legal. Most libertarians support at least leaving the issue to each individual state, and cutting off Federal funding. If it came down to a "libertarian" candidate who actually supported Roe v Wade and a neocon, I'd consider voting third party. But ultimately, the anti-abortion movement in the US is something of a joke and its designed as a distraction issue. I'm not going to let them get away with it.

When they start having serious conversations about putting women who have abortions on trial for murder (Which is ultimately what I support) as well as their doctors, or at least pardoning anti-abortion vigilantes, than I'll take them seriously. Until then, no, I'm not going to give anyone my vote solely because of this issue.

I just wish everyone in the liberty movement would agree to let the states deal with it rather than fighting over it at the Federal Level.

[Antischism]

Sarah Palin is a political caricature. Her ever-morphing ideologies are carefully crafted to appeal to what's currently gaining traction or popular among conservatives. Her biggest concern is relevancy, followed closely by Israel.

[klamath]

I'm honestly more concerned with the people who the State is actually killing, and the erosion of our rights, than I am of murder that just so happens to be legal. Most libertarians support at least leaving the issue to each individual state, and cutting off Federal funding. If it came down to a "libertarian" candidate who actually supported Roe v Wade and a neocon, I'd consider voting third party. But ultimately, the anti-abortion movement in the US is something of a joke and its designed as a distraction issue. I'm not going to let them get away with it.

When they start having serious conversations about putting women who have abortions on trial for murder (Which is ultimately what I support) as well as their doctors, or at least pardoning anti-abortion vigilantes, than I'll take them seriously. Until then, no, I'm not going to give anyone my vote solely because of this issue.

I just wish everyone in the liberty movement would agree to let the states deal with it rather than fighting over it at the Federal Level.
Well I'm not. A loss of life is the ultimate loss of liberty and is doesn't matter who took that liberty.

[fr33]

Maybe they didn't want to talk about Rev Wright because if you listen to his rant he makes a lot of sense.

Maybe they didn't want to talk about Ayers because at the time we were watching a reincarnation of the Vietnam war in Iraq.

I wouldn't accuse Palin of being very intelligent. She thinks those were important people to talk about but it probably would have blew up in her face. You betcha ;)

[Antischism]

Try the Pro abortionists. I am not likely to view them as ANYWHERE near profreedom. When 1 Million people are killed a year just in this country it eclipses any war we have ever been in in our entire history. That is by far worse than Neoconservatism, and Palin is NOT a neoconservative.

That's definitely an opinion. Opinions are nice to have, aren't they?

[Christian Liberty]

Well I'm not. A loss of life is the ultimate loss of liberty and is doesn't matter who took that liberty.

To be fair, I'm terrified. I don't honestly view not killing people just to brainwash them into being drones for the State and creating a 1984 type world for them to live in is really that much of an improvement.

I support making abortion illegal, and not only that, I support the death penalty for it. But freedom is also a holistic ideology. I will not ever emphasize one issue at the expense of all other issues.

I'd need to know Palin's foreign policy and government surveilance positions before I could say one way or another.

[klamath]

To be fair, I'm terrified. I don't honestly view not killing people just to brainwash them into being drones for the State and creating a 1984 type world for them to live in is really that much of an improvement.

I support making abortion illegal, and not only that, I support the death penalty for it. But freedom is also a holistic ideology. I will not ever emphasize one issue at the expense of all other issues.

I'd need to know Palin's foreign policy and government surveilance positions before I could say one way or another.I am not for the death penalty for abortion as I am more for the idea to make the idea unacceptable just as I would like to see the idea of casual war become unacceptable. Voting for someone that finds it acceptable to kill the unborn is the same as voting for someone that believes in causal war. It is a sure way to keep both things acceptable.

[Christian Liberty]

I am not for the death penalty for abortion as I am more for the idea to make the idea unacceptable just as I would like to see the idea of casual war become unacceptable. Voting for someone that finds it acceptable to kill the unborn is the same as voting for someone that believes in causal war. It is a sure way to keep both things acceptable.

If forced to choose between a libertarian candidate that supported abortion and a neoconservative, would you vote for the neo-con or would you just not vote/go third (or fourth) party?

I believe the states should protect the unborn with their anti-homicide laws.

[klamath]

If forced to choose between a libertarian candidate that supported abortion and a neoconservative, would you vote for the neo-con or would you just not vote/go third (or fourth) party?

I believe the states should protect the unborn with their anti-homicide laws.Not vote or vote third party like I did in the last two elections. I did vote for GJ even thought he is prochoice (thought his actions during governor wasn't) but that was just for strategic reason to show the block of libertarian Republicans the republican party had lost. It was a failed vote in all ways.

[Christian Liberty]

Not vote or vote third party like I did in the last two elections. I did vote for GJ even thought he is prochoice (thought his actions during governor wasn't) but that was just for strategic reason to show the block of libertarian Republicans the republican party had lost. It was a failed vote in all ways.

Here's why that was the case with Johnson.

Johnson was as "prolife" as the typical Republican, which really means, he wanted abortion to be done only with difficulty and careful consideration. He, like most "pro-life" Republicans, did not actually want abortion to be illegal and punishable by law.

Johnson just wasn't intellectually dishonest enough to call his position "Pro-life."

I would have voted for Johnson too, I'm not a huge fan of his but he was way better than Mittens or Obama...

[compromise]

Who?

I can only think of one poster who I'd vote for Palin over on here...

I'd vote for Palin over the unelectable people like Cajun and pcosmar.

I think Eduardo is electable, so I would enthusiastically support his candidacy. I doubt he'd run against her though, he's too smart for that.

[Christian Liberty]

Johnson was also clearly better than Stein. That obviously wasn't even close either.

I guess the real debate is Gary Johnson VS Virgil Goode. I guess I can see both sides of that one. Although Goode was really concerned about immigration "To protect American jobs" and he wasn't on board with drug legalization. To my understanding, his foreign policy was a lot like Johnson's, relatively reserved, but without a true philosophical backing for it like Ron Paul has. So ultimately, I would say Johnson was the best candidate in that election, even though he wasn't great.

[Christian Liberty]

I'd vote for Palin over the unelectable people like Cajun and pcosmar.

I'm surprised you didn't name me there. I'm in "wacko land" too dude:p

That said, what does electability have to do with anything? Do you seriously support Palin's ideology over Cajun's? (I honestly don't know pcosmar that well so I won't directly ask about him.)


I think Eduardo is electable, so I would enthusiastically support his candidacy. I doubt he'd run against her though, he's too smart for that.

Seriously? I know Eduardo said he "Prefers Rand Paul and Ted Cruz foreign policy over Ron Paul foreign policy." I'd have to figure out whether he's like Rand or like Cruz, because although Rand's foreign policy isn't perfect, it is way better than that of Ted Cruz. Considering he's a fiscal conservative, for the most part a constitutionalist, and pro-life, I'd vote for him assuming the foreign policy was relatively solid. That said, he is a hard-core social conservative, and quite authoritarian on those issues, so I can't see how you can possibly prefer him over someone like Cajun.

Would you vote for me?

[compromise]

I'm surprised you didn't name me there. I'm in "wacko land" too dude:p

That said, what does electability have to do with anything? Do you seriously support Palin's ideology over Cajun's? (I honestly don't know pcosmar that well so I won't directly ask about him.)



Seriously? I know Eduardo said he "Prefers Rand Paul and Ted Cruz foreign policy over Ron Paul foreign policy." I'd have to figure out whether he's like Rand or like Cruz, because although Rand's foreign policy isn't perfect, it is way better than that of Ted Cruz. Considering he's a fiscal conservative, for the most part a constitutionalist, and pro-life, I'd vote for him assuming the foreign policy was relatively solid. That said, he is a hard-core social conservative, and quite authoritarian on those issues, so I can't see how you can possibly prefer him over someone like Cajun.

Would you vote for me?

It would depend on how you ran your campaign and whether you were able to present yourself in an electable manner.

Electability is important. Candidate A is a Ron Paul clone ideologically, but a disorganized, raging idiot who likes to talk about Jewish conspiracies all the time, smokes DMT and shouts abuse at anyone he perceives to be a traitor to his cause. Candidate B is a Ted Cruz clone ideologically, but is sane, presentable, articulate and politically skilled. Candidate C is a Chris Christie clone ideologically and is supported by the GOP establishment. If B is polling much better than A, which will undoubtedly happen, then it is worth voting for B over A to avoid getting C.

I agree fully with Rand's political platform, including foreign policy. Cruz is acceptable to me on a few key foreign policy issues and almost all domestic policy issues, so I would definitely vote for him if I were resident in Texas. For the same reasons, I would vote for Eduardo.

[Christian Liberty]

It would depend on how you ran your campaign and whether you were able to present yourself in an electable manner.

Electability is important. Candidate A is a Ron Paul clone ideologically, but a disorganized, raging idiot who likes to talk about Jewish conspiracies all the time, smokes DMT and shouts abuse at anyone he perceives to be a traitor to his cause. Candidate B is a Ted Cruz clone ideologically, but is sane, presentable, articulate and politically skilled. Candidate C is a Chris Christie clone ideologically and is supported by the GOP establishment. If B is polling much better than A, which will undoubtedly happen, then it is worth voting for B over A to avoid getting C.

I agree fully with Rand's political platform, including foreign policy. Cruz is acceptable to me on a few key foreign policy issues and almost all domestic policy issues, so I would definitely vote for him if I were resident in Texas. For the same reasons, I would vote for Eduardo.

OK, so you're talking about lesser of two evils type thinking. So you'd still vote for someone like Cajuncocoa against a democrat or an establishment Republican, but you'd prefer someone like Cruz.

If you agree with Rand on everything, I guess we're different, politically, in that case. I like Rand, but not nearly as much as I like Ron. In all honesty, I see little to like about Cruz, he's good on the economy, but he supports enough bad foreign policy (Such as involvement in Syria) that supporting him just isn't worth it to me. I understand why a politician like Ron or Rand Paul would make an endorsement like that, but as I'm not a politician, I'll tell it like I think it is.

Cruz is new, and he already sucks. He already voted to give medical data to the Feds. We don't really know what he thinks of the Patriot Act. And we know he supports involvement in Syria (Rand Paul, by contrast, does not.) He doesn't even know if he agrees with Rand on hemp. And while I wouldn't discount someone on one issue like that, it shows his lack of 10th amendment credentials.

If he's already doing this sort of stuff NOW, I think the establishment will have him in the next couple years.

I personally wouldn't vote for Cruz.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I'd vote for Palin over the unelectable people like Cajun and pcosmar.

I think Eduardo is electable, so I would enthusiastically support his candidacy. I doubt he'd run against her though, he's too smart for that.

Well your name is "compromise"...

[bunklocoempire]

She was the lipstick on the pig.

And thank you for that. lol
More times than not I heard "I'm not voting for McCain, I'm voting for Palin" in the circles I was trying to influence with liberty. Her involvement did nothing to help me try to educate folks. Just more clouding of the issues.:mad:

Here she had an audience and went with "Women Hunt" instead of "The Second Amendment Isn't About Hunting". Must've been forbidden to wear the later. :rolleyes:
http://i1275.photobucket.com/albums/y442/bunklocoempirehi/antisecond_zps75f16031.jpg

Lame is lame especially when someone pretends talking about "the other guy" is as important as just putting the truth out there. Her truth to bullshit ratio doesn't cut it for me.

[LibertyEagle]

Seriously? I know Eduardo said he "Prefers Rand Paul and Ted Cruz foreign policy over Ron Paul foreign policy." I'd have to figure out whether he's like Rand or like Cruz, because although Rand's foreign policy isn't perfect, it is way better than that of Ted Cruz. Considering he's a fiscal conservative, for the most part a constitutionalist, and pro-life, I'd vote for him assuming the foreign policy was relatively solid. That said, he is a hard-core social conservative, and quite authoritarian on those issues, so I can't see how you can possibly prefer him over someone like Cajun.



You're kidding, right?

[LibertyEagle]

OK, so you're talking about lesser of two evils type thinking. So you'd still vote for someone like Cajuncocoa against a democrat or an establishment Republican, but you'd prefer someone like Cruz.

If you agree with Rand on everything, I guess we're different, politically, in that case. I like Rand, but not nearly as much as I like Ron. In all honesty, I see little to like about Cruz, he's good on the economy, but he supports enough bad foreign policy (Such as involvement in Syria) that supporting him just isn't worth it to me. I understand why a politician like Ron or Rand Paul would make an endorsement like that, but as I'm not a politician, I'll tell it like I think it is.

Cruz is new, and he already sucks. He already voted to give medical data to the Feds. We don't really know what he thinks of the Patriot Act. And we know he supports involvement in Syria (Rand Paul, by contrast, does not.) He doesn't even know if he agrees with Rand on hemp. And while I wouldn't discount someone on one issue like that, it shows his lack of 10th amendment credentials.

If he's already doing this sort of stuff NOW, I think the establishment will have him in the next couple years.

I personally wouldn't vote for Cruz.

Cruz is certainly not anywhere close to being pure and I've stated on here numerous times that I don't trust him. HOWEVER, to lump him in with the likes of Harry Reid, and the other serious warmongering, big-spending, spying, traitors that we have in D.C. is rather extreme. People are not all good or all bad. Cruz has done some very good things and some also bad. But, even when he was at his worst, he didn't come close to a Pelosi.

Would I vote for him? I already did for Senate. The alternative was a total POS. At least Cruz was a maybe. It was a good choice too and I would do it all over again.

Would I vote for him for President? Probably not. Certainly not if there was a better option; like Rand.

[AuH20]

Rev. Wright, while being right on some things, was a strong proponent of black liberation theology which is essentially Che Guevera masquerading as Jesus. And Bill Ayers was a prominent member of a ruthless organization that wanted eliminate to 30% of the population that would resist a progressive agenda. So yes, there were some major issues there.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Rev. Wright, while being right on some things, was a strong proponent of black liberation theology which is essentially Che Guevera masquerading as Jesus. And Bill Ayers was a prominent member of a ruthless organization that wanted eliminate to 30% of the population that would resist a progressive agenda. So yes, there were some major issues there.

And Palin was on the same ticket as a warmonger. Not saying that Wright and Ayers were without their faults (especially Ayers) but I don't think either one came close to the pain and suffering that McCain has inflicted as a senator and would have created as president.

[AuH20]

And Palin was on the same ticket as a warmonger. Not saying that Wright and Ayers were without their faults (especially Ayers) but I don't think either one came close to the pain and suffering that McCain has inflicted as a senator and would have created as president.

My point was that the McCain campaign had no interest in winning. They also hired Obama spies that worked in the campaign. If you run to win, you pull out the stops.

[Christian Liberty]

You're kidding, right?

I'm only aware of one forum member on here that has political views worse than that of Ted Cruz. At least as far as I'm concerned. Its not Eduardo either.

I don't know what the issue is between you and Cajun. Cajun isn't the most purist poster here, and you're not the most politically utilitarian. I happen to like you both.


Cruz is certainly not anywhere close to being pure and I've stated on here numerous times that I don't trust him. HOWEVER, to lump him in with the likes of Harry Reid, and the other serious warmongering, big-spending, spying, traitors that we have in D.C. is rather extreme. People are not all good or all bad. Cruz has done some very good things and some also bad. But, even when he was at his worst, he didn't come close to a Pelosi.

I didn't compare him to anyone. I just said he sucks. Obviously the people you mentioned, so far, have sucked more than Cruz did/does.

But Ted Cruz still sucks.


Would I vote for him? I already did for Senate. The alternative was a total POS. At least Cruz was a maybe. It was a good choice too and I would do it all over again.


Well, or there's voting third party, or not voting. That said, people will always have their line in the sand with "Lesser evils." I still have members of my family telling me that Romney was actually a lesser evil when compared to Obama, and defending voting accordingly.



Would I vote for him for President? Probably not. Certainly not if there was a better option; like Rand.

If Cruz was the GOP candidate for Pres., would you vote for him? I wouldn't. I'd go third party.

I'm going to vote for Rand. He's not perfect but at least he seems to actually understand the constitution for the most part. Cruz is too much of a hawk and has too many unanswered questions.

[eduardo89]

Who?

I can only think of one poster who I'd vote for Palin over on here...

I'd vote for Sarah over me.

[compromise]

I'm only aware of one forum member on here that has political views worse than that of Ted Cruz. At least as far as I'm concerned. Its not Eduardo either.

I don't know what the issue is between you and Cajun. Cajun isn't the most purist poster here, and you're not the most politically utilitarian. I happen to like you both.


Cajun is most definitely among the most purist active posters here. Most of the ultra-purists became inactive and went over to RevBox or Daily Paul.

[eduardo89]

Cajun is most definitely among the most purist active posters here. Most of the ultra-purists became inactive and went over to RevBox or Daily Paul.

Cajun is one of the most 'purist' on here. I don't like that term, though, I prefer ideologically stubborn.

[AuH20]

Johnson was also clearly better than Stein. That obviously wasn't even close either.

I guess the real debate is Gary Johnson VS Virgil Goode. I guess I can see both sides of that one. Although Goode was really concerned about immigration "To protect American jobs" and he wasn't on board with drug legalization. To my understanding, his foreign policy was a lot like Johnson's, relatively reserved, but without a true philosophical backing for it like Ron Paul has. So ultimately, I would say Johnson was the best candidate in that election, even though he wasn't great.

Joihnson couldn't even keep his campaign in the black, which explained his cluelessness about economics. Goode was the better candidate, which was I voted for him. Gary was largely smoke and mirrors.

[compromise]

Joihnson couldn't even keep his campaign in the black, which explained his cluelessness about economics. Goode was the better candidate, which was I voted for him. Gary was largely smoke and mirrors.

Agreed. Goode should run for the House again. He'd make a goode addition to the constitutional conservative faction there.

[AuH20]

Agreed. Goode should run for the House again. He'd make a goode addition to the constitutional conservative faction there.

I'm pretty sure Gary Johnson finished 200k in the red when all was said and done. Pathetic. And all the suckers hung on his every word because of mainly drug legalization. Don't mind that he was a fiscal ignoramus.

[compromise]

I'm pretty sure Gary Johnson finished 200k in the red when all was said and done. Pathetic. And the all suckers hung on his word because of mainly drug legalization. Don't mind that he was a fiscal ignoramus.

Gary also seems to be too stupid to run for Senate and so dooms himself to obscurity.

[AuH20]

Gary also seems to be too stupid to run for Senate and so dooms himself to obscurity.

I wouldn't go that far, but he's a limited, niche candidate.

[eduardo89]

Johnson was also clearly better than Stein. That obviously wasn't even close either.

I guess the real debate is Gary Johnson VS Virgil Goode. I guess I can see both sides of that one. Although Goode was really concerned about immigration "To protect American jobs" and he wasn't on board with drug legalization. To my understanding, his foreign policy was a lot like Johnson's, relatively reserved, but without a true philosophical backing for it like Ron Paul has. So ultimately, I would say Johnson was the best candidate in that election, even though he wasn't great.

Johnson is pro-abortion, so that automatically excludes him from consideration as a candidate if you are a Christian.

The only thing Johnson seems to understand is how to roll a joint. He thought that would win him the presidency.

[compromise]

Johnson is pro-abortion, so that automatically excludes him from consideration as a candidate if you are a Christian.

The only thing Johnson seems to understand is how to roll a joint. He thought that would win him the presidency.

He probably only thought he could be president because he was high.

[eduardo89]

He probably only thought he could be president because he was high.

Hahaha

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to compromise again.

[anaconda]

Fuck Palin. She is a stupid author that did not even have the guts to endorse Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich and the like. She would have made huge news if she would have back Ron in 2011/2012 but she was a big pussy that just wanted to make sure she didn't blow her gig at FOX News.

Still doesn't preclude that we could get most every correct vote from her in the Senate.

[anaconda]

Don't mind that he was a fiscal ignoramus.

Didn't he balance the budget in New Mexico?

[eduardo89]

Didn't he balance the budget in New Mexico?

He definitely wants people to believe that, but it's not the truth. New Mexico's state debt went up every year he was governor, so did spending.



He does indeed put forth that image. He is blatantly lying when he puts it forth.

Politicians lie. Politicians stink. Every governor running for President this year had during their tenure as governor:

Taxes go up.
Spending go up.
Debt go up.

They just lie about it and count on people not researching the facts for themselves. It's generally a smart bet. Americans are extremely comfortable being lied to. So they lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

No, he did not. It is important to realize this. qh4dotcom's statement above is not true. It is false.


New Mexico's state government's spending went way up while Johnson was governor, from 4.4 billion annually to 7.7 billion annually. (see here (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1995_2003NMb_13s1li111mcn_F0s))


New Mexico's state government's taxes went way up while Johnson was governor. Total direct revenue increased from 5.3 billion to 6.6 billion (see here (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1995_2003NMb_13s1li001mcn_F0s30s40s5 0s10s)) . Or, according to a different measurement from a different site, tax revenue increased from 2.7 billion to 3.5 billion. (see here (http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/state-taxes/new-mexico/all-tax-types/tax-revenue#table))


New Mexico's state government's debt went way up while Johnson was governor. In fact, it tripled: from 1.82 billion to 4.6 billion. (see here (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1995_2003NMb_13s1li111mcn_H0s))



http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&year=1995_2003&sname=NM&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=4.40_4.69_4.98_5.35_5.72_6.25_6.61_7.32_ 7.72&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&year=1995_2003&sname=NM&units=b&bar=1&stack=0&size=m&col=c&spending0=5.26_6.35_6.26_7.21_6.69_8.38_6.65_5.89_ 6.64&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Gross%20Public%20Debt&year=1995_2003&sname=NM&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=1.82_2.15_2.46_2.57_3.16_3.63_4.30_4.49_ 4.60&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a


More spending. More taxes. More debt.

So, there's his record. But, but, but, you say! But, he really shares our vision of liberty at heart, he just did a lousy job actually implementing it as governor. Well, here's his farewell State of the State Address, in which he explains to New Mexico the things which were important to him, the accomplishments of which he is most proud. Virtually all of which are various programs he has increased. Various spending he has increased. Various pork barrels, in other words, that he's rolled out for leviathan and its grateful parasites.

Here it is: http://www.stateline.org/live/details/speech?contentId=16108

So not only does he not walk the walk (which is what's important to me), he does not even talk the talk (in case that's what's important to any of you).

~~~

Another note: But, but, but, you say! But, this was the legislature's fault! Mr. Johnson was vetoing, vetoing, vetoing, as much as he could, but they were overriding him. It would have been tons worse if not for him.

Truth will contradict this theory. Mr. Johnson did veto many bills, but clearly not nearly enough. He did not veto appropriations bills. Those would have been the important ones to veto! He did not veto all the outrageous growth in the state government that was occurring during his tenure. In fact, as you can see from his address above, he took pride in much of this growth. He could have vetoed the cancerous growth. The debt. The taxes. The waste. He could have stopped it. But, either he had no desire to do so (this is what I think is the truth), or, the most charitable possibility is that he had the desire, but lacked the courage to do it.

What's more, New Mexico has the line item veto. Not only could he have vetoed budget bills outright, he could have crossed out billions of dollars of spending, line by line. Did he? No. His line item vetoing was weak, weak, weak. Paltry. Inconsequential. 27 million out of multi-billion dollar budgets.

Weak.

Fake.

Compare that to Governor Palin:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Gross%20Public%20Debt&units=b&size=m&year=2007_2009&sname=AK&bar=1&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=a_a_a&spending0=9.94_9.96_10.25

[AuH20]

Didn't he balance the budget in New Mexico?

Not really. The state budget rose 5% per year. Moreover, look at the state debt accrued from 1995 to 2003. 2.78 billion dollar increase:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallery=3590

[eduardo89]

Not really. The state budget rose 5% per year. Moreover, look at the state debt from accrued 1995 to 2003. 2.78 billion dollar increase. More GJ nonsense:

In his defense, numbers don't make too much sense when you're stoned.

[AuH20]

In his defense, numbers don't make too much sense when you're stoned.

He was one of the better governors in a lot of losers. His credentials were oversold.

[eduardo89]

He was one of the better governors in a lot of losers. His credentials were oversold.

It's not hard to be a better governor when you look at states like California and Illinois. It's like saying Jimmy Carter was a better president than Obama and Bush.

[BenIsForRon]

People need to see Wright's unedited sermons to truly understand what he is saying. I think he's a pretty good dude.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqPUXjFYh38