Bachmann prepping to swing at Perry >>>Michele Bachmann is planning on using at tomorrow night's Florida debate to chip away at the support Rick Perry has taken from her: "Bernie Madoff deals with Ponzi schemes, not the grandparents of America," says a Bachmann adviser. "Clearly she feels differently about the value of Social Security than Gov. Perry does. She believes Social Security needs to be saved, that it's an important safety net for Americans who have paid into it all their lives."
York goes on the say Bachmann's camp was unhappy with how few questions she got at last week's Reagan Library debate, and quotes the Bachmann adviser saying she will make clear she disagrees with Perry on Social Security if asked:
"Certainly not," the adviser says. "She strongly disagrees with his position on that, and it's clearly not something that's going to sit well with the people of Florida and Iowa and South Carolina and many of the early states, where there is a large population of seniors who rely heavily on Social Security. For [Perry] to scare them is wrong."<<<
What time and what channel is the debate on?
Heads up, this one is going to be packed with Paultards. They tried to snatch up all the tickets including joining Tea Party groups that had tickets to get the ones for those groups.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?311910-CNN-Tea-Party-Express-Debate-September-12-2011-WE-NEED-TO-GET-PEOPLE-THERE-ASAP
One thing you will not hear discussed in this debate or any other is what will these candidates do to stop the islamization of America.
France, England and most all of Europe is being dominated by islam...does anyone care, it is happening here.
" Writings of James Madison - Vol. 6 (to James Monroe):
"If we advert to the nature of Republican Government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people."
In 1788, in "Letters from a Federal Farmer," Richard Henry Lee (a Signer of the Declaration of Independence), during the debates on the Constitution, wrote:
January 20, 1788
(Excerpt)
". . . . The supreme power is undoubtedly in the people, and it is a principle well-established in my mind, that they reserve all powers not expressly delegated by them to those who govern; this is as true in forming a state as in forming a federal government. . . . People, and very wisely too, like to be express and explicit about their essential rights, and not to be forced to claim them on the precarious and unascertained tenure of inferences and general principles, knowing that in any controversy between them and their rulers, concerning those rights, disputes may be endless, and nothing certain—But admitting, on the general principle, that all rights are reserved of course, which are not expressly surrendered, the people could with sufficient certainty assert their rights on all occasions, and establish them with ease, still there are infinite advantages in particularly enumerating many of the most essential rights reserved in all cases; and as to the less important ones, we may declare in general terms, that all not expressly surrendered are reserved. We do not by declarations change the nature of things, or create new truths, but we give existence, or at least establish in the minds of the people truths and principles which they might never otherwise have thought of, or soon forgot. If a nation means its systems, religious or political, shall have duration, it ought to recognize the leading principles of them in the front page of every family book. What is the usefulness of a truth in theory, unless it exists constantly in the minds of the people, and has their assent: we discern certain rights, as the freedom of the press, and the trial by jury, etc. which the people of England and of America of course believe to be sacred, and essential to their political happiness, and this belief in them is the result of ideas at first suggested to them by a few able men, and of subsequent experience; while the people of some other countries hear these rights mentioned with the utmost indifference; they think the privilege of existing at the will of a despot much preferable to them. Why this difference among beings in every way formed alike? The reason of the difference is obvious—it is the effect of education, a series of notions impressed upon the minds of the people by examples, precepts and declarations. When the people of England got together, at the time they formed Magna Charta, they did not consider it sufficient, that they were indisputably entitled to certain natural and inalienable rights, not depending on silent titles, they, by a declaratory act, expressly recognized them, and explicitly declared to all the world, that they were entitled to enjoy those rights; they made an instrument in writing, and enumerated those they then thought essential, or in danger, and this wise men saw was not sufficient; and therefore, that the people might not forget these rights, and gradually become prepared for arbitrary government, their discerning and honest leaders caused this instrument to be confirmed nearly forty times, and to be read twice a year in public places, not that it would lose its validity without such confirmations, but to fix the contents of it in the minds of the people, as they successively come upon the stage. Men, in some countries do not remain free, merely because they are entitled to natural and inalienable rights; men in all countries are entitled to them, not because their ancestors once got together and enumerated them on paper, but because, by repeated negotiations and declarations, all parties are brought to realize them, and of course to believe them to be sacred. Were it necessary, I might show the wisdom of our past conduct, as a people, in not merely comforting ourselves that we were entitled to freedom, but in constantly keeping in view, in addresses, bills of rights, in newspapers, etc. the particular principles on which our freedom must always depend."
He never should have answered the SS question as being a “Ponze Scheme”. It was not a very bright move, and as they like to say a a lot about Palin... “not very Presidential”.
Palin ‘schooled’ him on how to respond to that.
WTF? "Eliminate waste"?? Every politician running for national office since I was a wee lad have promised to "eliminate waste, fraud and abuse." Hasn't happened and never will happen because it is way too easy to make tons of money in the government racket.
Judson, if you want to make inconsequential nibbles around the edge of the problem, then go home. You should have said they need to debate eliminating whole departments that do nothing but ruin America. EPA, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, and Commerce would be good starters.
Ads like that don't always work in Republican primaries. Republican primary voters know that Republican candidates get smeared with lies and distortions about Social Security. Romney could just be telling die hard Republicans which candidate is the "real Republican" with that ad. Most Republican voters (especially primary voters) know they should vote for the "scary" candidate when they get an ad like that.
Cincinatus' Wife
wrote:
I don't want Romney. Romney will never have my vote.
I'm not sure about Perry. He's not my first choice. I'm waiting on Sarah Palin to make her announcement. She's my first choice. Herman Cain also looks very interesting.
We don't need another establishment politician.
Actually, if any candidate promises to be a Republican Grover Cleveland, that would get my vote. We need a President who can veto the progressive, extra-constitutional crap that comes out of Congress. One who knows how to use a veto pen and can write words like, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to …"
We need someone who is willing to break Cleveland's record for most vetoes in a single congressional session (212, in the 50th Congress) and most vetoes in a single presidential term (414 in his first term).
Perry should just change that ad and go after Romney’s health plan. Instead of the American flag theme for Romney, change the “O” to look like Obama’s logo.
Then tag it with, RomneyCare, ObamCare. Same plan same taxes. Same Washington.
I predict this debate will suck. CNN? The Tea Party? LOL! No one group represents the Tea Party, it’s like a herd of cats with no leaders, just a common theme.
I predict the whole debate and the questions presented by CNN will make the Tea Party look like a bunch of extreemists and nuts. I also hope the candidates don’t attack each other to try to gain points just because they were asked a loaded question. Newt did a good job last time of putting the press in it’s place. I hope the candidates don’t pile on Perry because of Social Security being a Ponzi scheme. We all know it is....so maybe they will talk solutions, Cain did....
Conservatives know the premise of that statement is in left field. If you want to eliminate, say, 20% of government waste... you would make a good start by eliminating 20% of government. By definition, government IS waste. Unless its doing what its supposed to do, such as national defense.
There hasn’t been a poll of the race since the 1st of September, I am dying to know where the race stands at the moment, and how and if the debate affected everyones numbers.
That kind of nonsense might work on the morons that vote for democrats, but pisses off GOP primary voters big time.
Al Sharpton has a better shot at the GOP nomination at this point.
WHAT???? I thought you were for Perry???
