TexasCHLforum.com

Looks like the Obama crew are using the following "Rules (for Radicals)" with this tax-return stuff:

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

However, they better watch out, or this one might get them:

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

Mr. Romney just needs to smile and continue to say "No".

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem with democrats is that they're long on "I believe this," and "I feel," and very short on fact based thinking.

Or, as Ronald Reagan famously said, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

2firfun50 wrote:Where is the money to pay back these loans? Tax money of course. So taxes for everyone are going to have to increase in a fair and equitable manner.

You are seriously misinformed. Raising taxes will simply depress the economy more and lower tax receipts. When Reagan lowered taxes, federal tax receipts increased. The problem was, the Democrat Congress saw that as an opportunity to raise spending even more. (And lest you think I'm a Republican, I'm not. The Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats of getting us into this mess - in some cases more guilty. E.g. Nixon was the one who took us off the gold standard and by doing so stole our wealth.)

I did some research on taxing the rich. Here's some facts for you to consider:
1) Confiscating the entire incomes of every single person who earned more than a million dollars (100% of their income!) would finance our government for 111 days.
2) Confiscating the entire wealth (that's their homes, cars, bank accounts, investments - everything) of the 20 richest people in America would not pay the annual interest on the national debt.
3) Confiscating the entire wealth of every human being in America would not be enough to meet our current and future obligations for entitlements, etc.

(And no, I'm not giving you the sources for this information. If you really care about America, you'll do the research yourself. Forbes has an annual list of the richest people in America. You can start there.)

Taxing the rich is a fool's errand. The rich are the only ones who can pick up and leave. Can you move to Aruba if the burden gets too high here? The rich are packing up and leaving America now, just as they are in France where the fools are taxing them excessively. The rich are the only ones who have options.

There's an old fable about a goose and a golden egg. It's a child's story with adult wisdom. Think about it.

2firfun50 wrote:I'm tired of paying 23% while those living off investments are paying 15%.

You do know that included in your "them against us pool" are the millions of seniors living off investments, right? That along with the Romneys you despise so much are people like me, who have managed to scrape and save and put away a few thousand for retirement?

You need to cast off your blinders and get informed.

2firfun50 wrote:In my opionion, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not "entitlements". They are forced investments in the future.

That's a lie you were told by your government, and you chose to believe it. Those "investments" went into the general fund and served to enlarge the government and a favored few while you and I hoped to simply draw a measly paycheck of an "investment" that should have paid us at least four times as much.

2firfun50 wrote:We have paid into that system since 1939 and it is too late to call a mulligan. For me, "Now" is the future I have been investing in it for a total of 47 yrs. It is time.

Its time to quit playing the shell game and get serious. The balloon payments are due. Neither party. nor the American people have the will or the courage.

And the only thing that will save America is to stop spending so much. There aren't enough rich people to pay the interest. There aren't enough people to pay the future obligations.

And we haven't even discussed how your freedoms were stolen from you while you swallowed the class warfare rhetoric hook, line and sinker.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -virginia/
Former Obama campaign co-chair introduces Ryan in Virginia
Posted by
CNN Political Unit

(CNN) – Artur Davis, the former four-term Democratic congressman from Alabama who co-chaired President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, introduced the running mate of Obama's Republican challenger in Virginia Friday.

"Are you ready to meet the next vice president of the United States?" Davis asked at a rally in Springfield, Virginia. It was Ryan's second event of the day. He held a rally outside Richmond on Friday morning.

In his introduction, Davis pointed to Ryan's age – he's 42 – as having energized the GOP. Davis is 44.

{snip}

Davis, who said in May he was switching parties from Democrat to Republican, said he had only disagreed with Ryan on one subject: the status of Led Zeppelin as the "#1 band of the modern era."

"I questioned you as you said it. As a Genesis man, I questioned it," Davis said.

Sorry....that last bit was funny. They're both wrong. It's The Who, by far......but be that as it may.....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

• Romney up 47% over Obama's 45%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

• Romney down today, 44% to Obama's 46%
  
  Rasmussen has had Romney up consistently, even after the Paul Ryan announcement, so my guess is that the downturn from yesterday's 47/44 Romney/Obama is do to the negative fearmongering by democrats regarding Paul Ryan's plan. Simply put, people are being buffaloed. But that said, Gallup doesn't agree, and I'm guessing that once Ryan has completed a tour of Florida, the numbers will reverse again, in Romney's favor. As Rasmussen points out in his accompanying video, when voters in both Florida and Wisconsin (Ryan's home state) were asked regarding Medicare if they were more worried about Obama's Medicare plan or Ryan's Medicare plan, 48% said they were more worried about Obama's plan for Medicare, compared to 41% in Wisconsin and 42% in Florida who were worried about Ryan's plan.

I tell you guys, I can't remember when was the last time I felt this upbeat about an election.

TAM I agree, I havent been this upbeat in a long time.

Last night Greta did a profile on Ryan. They went to his old neighborhood, spoke with friends, family, teachers, schoolmates, local merchants, etc. Everyone seemed so positive & proud of him. Ryan is us. He is plain and simply one of us. A local boy made good. Ryan has rounded out Romney and humanized the campaign.

As I was watching it occurred to me that in a couple of hours I knew more about (and shared values with) Ryan then I have about the mystery man, bee-oh. The only people in bee-oh's past are radicals, hate mongers & communists....none who has anything in common with the average American nor who share common American values. Simply and in contrast to Romney/Ryan, bee-oh and his friends do not embrace American values.

I am pumped.

Jim Beaux wrote:TAM I agree, I havent been this upbeat in a long time.

Last night Greta did a profile on Ryan. They went to his old neighborhood, spoke with friends, family, teachers, schoolmates, local merchants, etc. Everyone seemed so positive & proud of him. Ryan is us. He is plain and simply one of us. A local boy made good. Ryan has rounded out Romney and humanized the campaign.

As I was watching it occurred to me that in a couple of hours I knew more about (and shared values with) Ryan then I have about the mystery man, bee-oh. The only people in bee-oh's past are radicals, hate mongers & communists....none who has anything in common with the average American nor who share common American values. Simply and in contrast to Romney/Ryan, bee-oh and his friends do not embrace American values.

I am pumped.

Something that irritates me is how the White House Occupier has convinced folks who look like him that he is like them. Your statement that I highlighted is a simplistic, but accurate portrayal of the man. In reality, his background isn't ANYTHING like most Americans, no matter what their ethnicity or region of the country they are from...he just isn't American, and I'm not talking about where he was born in the least.

baldeagle wrote:

2firfun50 wrote:In my opionion, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not "entitlements". They are forced investments in the future.

That's a lie you were told by your government, and you chose to believe it. Those "investments" went into the general fund and served to enlarge the government and a favored few while you and I hoped to simply draw a measly paycheck of an "investment" that should have paid us at least four times as much.

That's right. The taxes people paid in the 80s were spent in the 80s. Not only that, but more was spent than paid in taxes, increasing the federal debt. Future generations don't owe them. If anything they owe it to future generations to pay off the debt they accumulated through deficit spending. People can posture and yell all they want about "forced investments" but the money was spent long ago. There's nothing left except mounting debt. Their tax dollars, including FICA, were spent back then, by politicians they elected back then.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Well tell us; do you support Obama?

Nope

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If by "anti" you mean he wasn't a first choice, then I agree with your statement. But now it a two-man race so everyone is either anti-Romney or anti-Obama.

No, it is not a 2 man race. That is a silly thing to say.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You are dead wrong. I've opposed releasing tax returns for years. As I said earlier, it not relevant and all it does is provide Democrats the opportunity to use it in "greedy white man" attacks.

I'm glad you are consistent.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What arrogance! Yes, I want a good President and the sad fact is that in my 62 years the Democrats haven't produced a single one, not one. (Don't try throwing JFK out there either, I was alive when he was President and none of his publicity was accurate. Had he not been assassinated in 1963, he would have lost the election in 1964 and he would have faded into obscurity and been forgotten like Grover Cleveland.) So the chance of having a "good" President are far better with a Republican than a Democrat.

And in my 37 years neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have produced any stellar presidents, but I think Clinton was pretty good.

What I remember of Reagan was not impressive, but most of what I remember was from the Iran/Contra trials so its not a great assessment.

George HW Bush was nothing exciting. The economy wasn't great and Desert Shield/Storm could definitely have been handled much better.

Clinton passed welfare reform, presided over a great economy with a balanced budget, and he didn't commit many US troops to crap around the world that was none of our business. He was an idiot with his personal life though and let that get in the way. He was also a fool for bothering to answer any questions about his personal life to congress.

George W Bush was a horrible president. For the economy and for the rights of US citizens he was a train wreck...

Obama has watched our economy die and done nothing to help it. He has increased government spending at an alarming rate and he has not kept up his promise to close Guantanamo. I do like that he has pulled our troops out of Iraq, I wish he could find a way out of Afghanistan soon. I know lots of folks are mad about the healthcare issue, but it doesn't matter much to me.

tallmike wrote: And in my 37 years neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have produced any stellar presidents, but I think Clinton was pretty good.

Yeah, that Assault Weapons Ban and the first attempt to pass socialized medicine (Hillarycare) were awesome.

Clinton passed welfare reform, presided over a great economy with a balanced budget, and he didn't commit many US troops to crap around the world that was none of our business.

Correction: Clinton signed welfare reform written by congress (who had the majority in Congress for most of his administration again? I forget...), and those budgets are the product of which branch of govt?

As to committing troops:

He increased troop levels in Somalia, then there was that whole Bosnian War thing, and he sent US troops to Haiti, cruise missile attacks on Baghdad, cruise missile attacks on air defense targets in Southern Iraq.....not to mention the missed opportunities to take out Bin Laden....

tallmike wrote:No, it is not a 2 man race. That is a silly thing to say.

Really?
We have
1 - Obama
2 - Romney
3 = ?
If you are meaning there will be independents in the race, sure there will be, but do they stand any bit of a chance, and as always, the 3rd parties ALWAYS pull votes from one of the 2 above.

So why is it a silly thing to say?

"And in my 37 years neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have produced any stellar presidents, but I think Clinton was pretty good."

I guess if you think lying to the World for a year and trotting off your family and political party to do the same to protect your sorry but from assaulting a 21 year old girls with cigars and the like is "pretty good"

What happened to us as a society, and the role of President, that some of us accept such behavior?

glockstero wrote:What happened to us as a society, and the role of President, that some of us accept such behavior?

We didn't speak up when evil people degraded our society. We were intimidated by political correctness.

There was a time (in my lifetime) when a woman pregnant out of wedlock was thought to be a shameful thing. Now they don't even bother to marry. Some don't even bother to get a man. They go to a sperm bank and have children because that's what they want.

There was a time when abortion was thought of as wrong and was illegal in many places. Now we routinely kill over a million babies each year and few even blink an eye. We've killed over 50 million since it was legalized and made readily available.

There was a time when people didn't talk about their sex lives in public. Now you can find articles in popular magazines every month on improving your sex life, using new techniques and "spicing" it up.

There was a time when divorce was looked upon as something bad, and couples sought to keep their marriages together. Now people divorce because they "grew apart". In some circles cheating on your spouse is considered a way to save the marriage!

The degradation of our society has finally reached the point where some are speaking out, but far too many claim that is wrong, because people should be able to do whatever they want, and it's nobody's business what they do. It's crazy. At one time it really was nobody's business. Now they make it everybody's business then complain when some don't approve of it.

We are not more enlightened. We are more crude and animalistic.

Clinton's results looked good because he was riding Reagan's economic coattails
I give Clinton credit for not mucking it up like GWB did but Clinton was a man with no honor

tallmike wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Well tell us; do you support Obama?

Nope

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If by "anti" you mean he wasn't a first choice, then I agree with your statement. But now it a two-man race so everyone is either anti-Romney or anti-Obama.

No, it is not a 2 man race. That is a silly thing to say.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You are dead wrong. I've opposed releasing tax returns for years. As I said earlier, it not relevant and all it does is provide Democrats the opportunity to use it in "greedy white man" attacks.

I'm glad you are consistent.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What arrogance! Yes, I want a good President and the sad fact is that in my 62 years the Democrats haven't produced a single one, not one. (Don't try throwing JFK out there either, I was alive when he was President and none of his publicity was accurate. Had he not been assassinated in 1963, he would have lost the election in 1964 and he would have faded into obscurity and been forgotten like Grover Cleveland.) So the chance of having a "good" President are far better with a Republican than a Democrat.

And in my 37 years neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have produced any stellar presidents, but I think Clinton was pretty good.

What I remember of Reagan was not impressive, but most of what I remember was from the Iran/Contra trials so its not a great assessment.

George HW Bush was nothing exciting. The economy wasn't great and Desert Shield/Storm could definitely have been handled much better.

Clinton passed welfare reform, presided over a great economy with a balanced budget, and he didn't commit many US troops to crap around the world that was none of our business. He was an idiot with his personal life though and let that get in the way. He was also a fool for bothering to answer any questions about his personal life to congress.

George W Bush was a horrible president. For the economy and for the rights of US citizens he was a train wreck...

Obama has watched our economy die and done nothing to help it. He has increased government spending at an alarming rate and he has not kept up his promise to close Guantanamo. I do like that he has pulled our troops out of Iraq, I wish he could find a way out of Afghanistan soon. I know lots of folks are mad about the healthcare issue, but it doesn't matter much to me.

On the subject I highlighted, let me do some clarification for you since I served during those Clintonian years...we were most certainly committed to many places around the globe...I personally supported operations tied to "humanitarian relief" in Africa, the war in Bosnia, the southern No-Fly Zone in Iraq, the war in Kosovo, another relief operation in Haiti and a couple of other little things that I cannot go into details about...we were a small military at that point, being down-sized after the Cold War, and let me tell you, we stayed BUSY, and I don't know what all went on in Asia since I didn't serve in units that went there...so, don't say nothing military was going on under Bill Clinton, I was there and I KNOW what we did during the 90s.

RoyGBiv wrote:Clinton's results looked good because he was riding Reagan's economic coattails
I give Clinton credit for not mucking it up like GWB did but Clinton was a man with no honor

I agree with you on quite a bit, but what made Bill Clinton look good was him being reigned in by Republicans in Congress for a good portion of his Presidency...the credit I give to Clinton was in being self-serving enough to know he had to compromise occasionally if he wanted to keep on looking good...