Posted on 11/20/2010 12:13:04 PM PST by American Dream 246
arrogantsob: And here I thought that Bush the Elder had raised your taxes. So will Nancyboy Kirk.
Hear! Hear! Bravissimo!
The times that we are living in require a strong man: Allen West not Sarah Palin.
Well, I am a woman and that is my opinion and I will never vote for her. I like Allen West. No Romney, Pawlenty or Huckabee either. I like Jim De Mint or Mike Pence. My preference is always for a male candidate. What has become of my beloved America? I cry for it.
Arousing hatred is the media’s specialty. So 70% fell for it.
My, my, my there just isn’t anyone who can live up to your oh, so high standards is there. Everyone falls so far short so we just have to vote for Democrats don’t we?
Where did I ever say the Bush I should have raised taxes? And since he fell for the Democrat scam then had the media turn on him and use the tax raise as an excuse to defeat him I had no sympathy for him.
But the dumbasses who went Perot allowed the traitorous Clinton into office which inflicted enormous damage on our National Security. Damage which W had to correct or overcome.
Well you are all for punishing achievers anyway so what is your beef with a tax increase?
I am in a blue collar district in Queens, New York. Hardly what you would call a “Soccer Mom”. I do not define myself as that anyway, thank you. I just do not find any female candidates that I could vote for. Yes, as I am not an Android, but a Woman with emotions, yes I straight up vote with my feelings. I have never voted Democratic and I never will.
Female Politicians that I greatly admired: Aung Sang Suu Kyi, Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir. I bid you and your Family A Blessed Thanksgiving.
The exit polls in 1992 do not support the popular belief among the regularly scammed that Perot cost Bush the Elder his monar...oops, presidency. He was still smarting over being forced to go pro-life by Ronaldus Maximus as a condition of the VP nomination and, from his love of a "New World Order" to his acceptance of the notion that the "peace dividend" could be enjoyed at the expense of the Pentagon to his Americans with Disabilities Act, to his general mushball elitist foreign policy, to naming Swish Souter to SCOTUS, Bush the Elder reaped what he sowed.
Bush the Elder's fate was sealed when he kept insisting that Peggy Noonan write his 1988 convention acceptance speech when she repeatedly refused. When the stalking continued, Bush the Elder accepted her terms that the speech be given exactly, word-for-word, as she would write it. Knowing what Bush the Elder was, she included the language: "Read my lips, no new taxes." When Bush the Elder spoke those words, he was finished. As George Will described him in 1980, he was nothing but a little lap dog and his voice was a small, tinny arf.
Whatever Dubya did that was positive, he did not do very much to "correct or overcome" the National Security damage of the Clinton era.
As to your other inane post, this is your way of saying (without saying so explicitly) that you like the election of Mark Nancyboy Kirk to the US Senate over his Demonratic hack counterpart as though it somehow would make a difference. I so look forward to Nancyboy breaking your gullible little heart and mind. There is no such thing as a "fiscal conservative," one is either a conservative across the board, a social conservative (including military, guns and other issues) or an undependable phony like Nancyboy and his sycophants.
Once again, if the choice is between an unsuccessful insistence on extending all but one of Dubya's tax cuts (marriage penalty elimination, estate tax elimination, and all tax cuts but the very highest bracket tax cut on income over $250,000 per year and much, much more) and a successful passage of all but the upper crust income tax cut on income over $250,000 per year, then I favor tax cuts over making everyone suffer for the usual group of spoiled folks at the top who have already reaped the overwhelming benefit of the Reagan tax cuts and will benefit far more from the estate tax elimination than from some petty 4.5% tax cut on the megabucks portion of current income.
To put flesh on the bones of this argument, I give you the case of the New York Yankee baseball team and the Steinbrenner family's ownership (previously the ownership of the recently deceased patriarch George M. Steinbrenner). When a limited partnership of which GMS was general partner acquired the Yankees from Columbia Broadcasting System (which had run the franchise into the ground), the LLC paid CBS $8 million with an "m" in 1973 or thereabouts. In 1965, CBS had purchased the Yankees for $13 million (showing as sharp an eye for business as CBS had always shown for news under reds like Cronkite and Murrow). Over several decades, George Steinbrenner relentlessly increased the profitability of the franchise, poured a LOT of the increased profits back into player payroll (listen to the collective whine of the Yankee haters), sometimes wisely and sometimes not, but always producing a relatively competitive team and putting the backsides in the seats. Today, the Yankees are worth $1.25 to $1.5 billion with a "b" and are, as GMS used to say, an asset which is to baseball what the Mona Lisa is to artworks. GMS, considerate to the end, laid down his mortal life in July of this year and thereby spared his heirs (and Yankee fans) the anguish of nearly $700 million in 55% estate taxes which were temporarily ended by the Bush tax cuts. To pay those taxes would have required the Steinbrenner clan to sell the team and probably trigger a downward spiral in team fortunes by a new ownership of bean counters trying to improve the bottom line (in futility) by not spending as much on players. If you were the Steinbrenners (or a Yankee fan) would you prefer that (1) the Steinbrenners pay an extra 4.5% per year on their income over $250,000 per year AND the estate tax of nearly $700 million right now (forcing the sale of the club to short-sighted relatively cheapskate imbeciles) or (2) get the sure thing of paying the extra 4.5% on that upper tax bracket, year by year, but no estate tax at all, or (3) hold out for both the income tax cuts and the estate tax elimination.
If (3) works out, great, but it is no guarantee nor even yet likely. If (3) does not work out, then (2) is far preferable to (1). When you achieve what the Steinbrenner family has achieved in capital appreciation of an asset from $8 million to $1.25 to $1.5 billion, get back to us.
Of course, we are no more likely to see that than we are to see the non-existent resume of your "conservative" "achievements." Still waiting..... No resume is your concession that there is nothing to report.
If you support Mrs. Palin, you should seek for her the support of those who keep their options open but have no objection to her. Why alienate them? Her possibilities will survive without each and every conservative swearing fealty to her right now.
Of course, you are offended because pro-lifers HAVE standards. That is understood.
Resume???? Of course not!
No, Barbara Bush should not shut up. For God’s sake, we have a First Amendment right to speak our minds in this country. Conservatives had better start living up to their rhetoric. Are we going to back up and live by our Constitution or not? Are some of you so insecure in your beliefs and candidates that you cannot handle an honest debate in an open forum? Or are some of you demanding your own version of “political correctness”? Buck up, for crying out loud!!!
I agree wholeheartedly! You can't build some one up by tearing others down. I fully support Palin and hope to work to help her get the nomination. I am sick of this mob mentality of those just waiting to pounce on someone who disagrees with them. They are doing Sarah a severe disservice.
Good point. And we should also respect the First Amendment rights of those who rightly point out the Barbara Bush is the wife and mother of a whole gaggle of turkeys who have worked to undermine the USA and its taxpaying citizens at every turn for more than 22 years. Anti-American, Free Traitor, open borders, self-anointed elitist, scumbags, each and every one.
The Bushes didn't like Ronald Reagan, they don't like the USA or its people, they don't appreciate the concept of American exceptionalism, they don't like the concept of a government of, for, and by the People, and they don't like the idea of ordinary Americans getting involved in primary politics and promoting conservative candidates for the general elections.
Bush I took a Reagan revolution, and its landslide elections, and turned it into a one-term RINO disaster, giving us eight years of Bill Clinton. But what about Perot, you will most likely say. Perot would not likely have made any move if GHWB was not already working to sell out America to foreign countries, mostly our enemies.
Bush II barely beat the commie Al Gore, and then barely beat the commie John F'n Kerry, and then gave the country to Barak Obama.
Had these elitist losers gone away and retired in silence, no one would be pointing out what a disaster their whole family has been for the whole USA and its citizens. Compared to Obama, their legacy would have been entirely ignored. They chose to re-inject themselves into the current discussion, and in such a way as puts them in a most anti-American light.
They have to step out and slam the only pro-American conservative leader, and the person with the boldest, most sensible voice on the political stage for the past two years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.