Quote:The National Maximum Speed Law was proposed and signed into law by that well known Democrat President Richard M. Nixon.
There was a pretty good reason behind it at the time, don't you think? Of course, it was bad law regardless of who signed it.
Quote:Interesting you'd use that analogy. Much of the Clinton's history happens to reside there. What's still alive and kicking, folks like you would love to see buried there before the election cycle truly begins.
Nobody is saying "low grade political warfare isn't done by people on all points", but feel free to point out otherwise. Simply saying that when the alleged frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is already ordering her minions to take out a candidate from the other party 16 months before the election, that smacks of fear.
The funny part about all of this is that you progressives take offense to Cankles. That's all you can do when your frontrunner is Hillary Clinton.
I'll stand behind my statement that she won't be the nominee. You folks were giddy as school girls back in 2007 when she was the frontrunner then. She was the inevitable nominee in the 2008 cycle. The only problem is that some empty suit with no track record, but he could read a teleprompter and had just the right amount of melanin in his system came out of nowhere to trounce the old battleax. The democrat nominee for 2016 probably hasn't even announced yet, but rest assured, it won't be the champion for the middle class who has been chauffeured around the globe in limos and private planes for a quarter century.
Honestly, if I was a democrat, I'd be embarrassed by the complete lack of any bench.
I certainly have to agree with this. With her track record and lack of any real accomplishment, if I was a lib I would be embarrassed to have her as my candidate.
By the way, rather than "cankles" I think that a more appropriate nick-name would be "
cackles".
Quote:There was a pretty good reason behind it at the time, don't you think? Of course, it was bad law regardless of who signed it.
My point was in response to Malabar's claim it was a law created by limo-driven Democrats.
Quote:I certainly have to agree with this. With her track record and lack of any real accomplishment, if I was a lib I would be embarrassed to have her as my candidate.
By the way, rather than "cankles" I think that a more appropriate nick-name would be "cackles".
How exactly are these insults more constructive than a PAC's mudslinging at Rubio? Do you think it's ok to be smug and juvenile because your target is, in your view, more deserving?
Quote:How exactly are these insults more constructive than a PAC's mudslinging at Rubio? Do you think it's ok to be smug and juvenile because your target is, in your view, more deserving?
Constructive? Not much, but it is entertaining. I personally don't hate anyone (in fact, I don't care for the word when referring to someone) but Hillary (aka. cakles or Cankles) brings me awful close.
Do republicans really want to call out democrats for slinging mud or whatever term that is used during a presidential race? It is just hypocritical. The mud will be slung back and forth. The non story is the attacks that have come and will come. Not sure why either side would get on their high horse about mud slinging. It is just laughable.
Quote:Marco Rubio is all about immigration reform and has put bi-partisan legislation out there regarding it. Just because it was shot down by the far right as well as the far left establishment politicians doesn't mean that he wavered from his view.
That's laughable Marco has been on all sides of the immigration reform topic. You can credit him with whatever but to deny his flopping on immigration is dishonest.
Quote:Yes, because jagibelieve's comment on a message board has exactly the same impact as an article in the NYT.
The one thing we have control over is our own behavior.
Quote:Marco Rubio is all about immigration reform and has put bi-partisan legislation out there regarding it. Just because it was shot down by the far right as well as the far left establishment politicians doesn't mean that he wavered from his view.
Uh, no. That's exactly what it means. He could have kept fighting for it. It passed the Senate with his help-- then when the real test of leadership began, in the House, he backed off.
But whatever. It's not like Rubio is going to get the nomination...
Quote:That's laughable Marco has been on all sides of the immigration reform topic. You can credit him with whatever but to deny his flopping on immigration is dishonest.
Yep.
Stay thirsty my friend.
But either way Polo has as much a chance as Rubio.
Quote:Interesting you'd use that analogy. Much of the Clinton's history happens to reside there. What's still alive and kicking, folks like you would love to see buried there before the election cycle truly begins.
Nobody is saying "low grade political warfare isn't done by people on all points", but feel free to point out otherwise. Simply saying that when the alleged frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is already ordering her minions to take out a candidate from the other party 16 months before the election, that smacks of fear.
The funny part about all of this is that you progressives take offense to Cankles. That's all you can do when your frontrunner is Hillary Clinton.
I'll stand behind my statement that she won't be the nominee. You folks were giddy as school girls back in 2007 when she was the frontrunner then. She was the inevitable nominee in the 2008 cycle. The only problem is that some empty suit with no track record, but he could read a teleprompter and had just the right amount of melanin in his system came out of nowhere to trounce the old battleax. The democrat nominee for 2016 probably hasn't even announced yet, but rest assured, it won't be the champion for the middle class who has been chauffeured around the globe in limos and private planes for a quarter century.
Honestly, if I was a democrat, I'd be embarrassed by the complete lack of any bench.
More hard hitting political insight. You'll stand by your statement. Wow, real guts. Well, if it's good enough for you ... it's good enough for you. To know what you think I just have to watch Fox - which I happen to do. So I can see your thoughts coming a mile away.
And what's with this "you folks"? I can't remember the last time I voted for a Democrat. Perhaps never on a national level. But it doesn't mean all anti-Clintonites are as yahoo as you.Perhaps your view of Hillary reflects mother issues, I don't know. Give Dr. Phil a call. It might help.
Quote:That's laughable Marco has been on all sides of the immigration reform topic. You can credit him with whatever but to deny his flopping on immigration is dishonest.
To say that Mr. Rubio has "been on all sides" or "flip flopped" on immigration reform is really what is dishonest. At the very least he has worked to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats to try and get something done. That's much more than most any other politician in Congress does.
Quote:Uh, no. That's exactly what it means. He could have kept fighting for it. It passed the Senate with his help-- then when the real test of leadership began, in the House, he backed off.
But whatever. It's not like Rubio is going to get the nomination...
The bill passed the Senate but failed in the House. Mr. Rubio could try to influence support in the House, but let's not forget that he is a Senator not a Representative. Also, since the House failed to take it up, vote on it or offer changes, he said that perhaps the better way to try and get something done would be to do things "piecemeal". That's hardly a "flip flop".
I wouldn't at this point exactly count him out. At this point, the other "establishment candidates" that could possibly have a shot might be perhaps Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum or maybe Rick Perry. Of course, Jeb Bush is slated to make his announcement soon, but I doubt that most republicans want or would vote for another Bush for the nomination. While I for the most part like and agree with those candidates and would support any one of them should they win the nomination, none of them will get my vote in the primaries.
Of the other "tea party" type candidates that might have a shot, I would name maybe Ted Cruz or Rand Paul as possibilities. Again, I would support either one should they win the nomination, but at this point neither one has earned my vote.
My "not a chance" candidates include Dr. Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki. Honestly I don't know enough about George Pataki, but from what I understand he did a pretty good job as Governor of New York. In my opinion Lindsey Graham is a "RINO", though would be a better choice than Hillary. The other two, while I do like and admire them, don't have the necessary experience and qualifications to be President of the U.S.
I think I speak for most liberals when I say I hope Rubio is y'alls candidate.
Quote:Of course the difference is that the Hillary story wasn't an instruction from a Rubio PAC the way the Rubio story was a directive from American Bridge.
Oh now you guys dont like PACs? Caricatures... Caricatures everywhere
Quote:I certainly have to agree with this. With her track record and lack of any real accomplishment, if I was a lib I would be embarrassed to have her as my candidate.
By the way, rather than "cankles" I think that a more appropriate nick-name would be "<a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44zwRfXxi5s'>cackles</a>".
Progressives dont like Hillary. She's more your people than ours.
Quote:To say that Mr. Rubio has "been on all sides" or "flip flopped" on immigration reform is really what is dishonest. At the very least he has worked to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats to try and get something done. That's much more than most any other politician in Congress does.
The bill passed the Senate but failed in the House. Mr. Rubio could try to influence support in the House, but let's not forget that he is a Senator not a Representative. Also, since the House failed to take it up, vote on it or offer changes, he said that perhaps the better way to try and get something done would be to do things "piecemeal". That's hardly a "flip flop".
I wouldn't at this point exactly count him out. At this point, the other "establishment candidates" that could possibly have a shot might be perhaps Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum or maybe Rick Perry. Of course, Jeb Bush is slated to make his announcement soon, but I doubt that most republicans want or would vote for another Bush for the nomination. While I for the most part like and agree with those candidates and would support any one of them should they win the nomination, none of them will get my vote in the primaries.
Of the other "tea party" type candidates that might have a shot, I would name maybe Ted Cruz or Rand Paul as possibilities. Again, I would support either one should they win the nomination, but at this point neither one has earned my vote.
My "not a chance" candidates include Dr. Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki. Honestly I don't know enough about George Pataki, but from what I understand he did a pretty good job as Governor of New York. In my opinion Lindsey Graham is a "RINO", though would be a better choice than Hillary. The other two, while I do like and admire them, don't have the necessary experience and qualifications to be President of the U.S.
Maybe he should have shut the government down to get what he wanted. That's what real politicians do.
Quote:Maybe he should have shut the government down to get what he wanted. That's what real politicians do.
I'd have more respect for him if he did.