• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack

We could revisit Hillary's past financial dealings and Obama's admitted drug use. Perry would certainly be better than whatever the Demos have to offer, and his experience shows it.

The thought of having competent leadership in the WH seems to make the leftists nervous.
the past three presidents have admitted drug use.

and the Democrats would really have to screw up badly in their choice of candidate and in the election for Perry to be electable.

Who do you think should run?
 
How do you figure?

You ask some of the most ignorant questions on the forum. I'll let you figure it out.
 
We could revisit Hillary's past financial dealings and Obama's admitted drug use. Perry would certainly be better than whatever the Demos have to offer, and his experience shows it.

The thought of having competent leadership in the WH seems to make the leftists nervous.

You're like Pavlov's dog. I mention any republican and you salivate the word Hillary. Ruff, ruff.
 
Not just better than the terrorists, but much, much better.

And just as depraved if you adopt their strategies.
 
the past three presidents have admitted drug use.
Clinton, of course a liar, said he did not inhale. I've only heard accusations against George Bush, and although Obama has admitted to using pot and coke the rumor that he dealt in it has never been proven.

and the Democrats would really have to screw up badly in their choice of candidate and in the election for Perry to be electable.
I disagree. He has a very good record in Texas and is a proven leader. If he is defeated it will be by party politic only and not the quality and experience of the candidate.

Who do you think should run?
Perry, Jindal maybe, Christie may come back, Romney also. I don't believe Cruz has enough experience, and the same with Rubio. There are others who may make a move and, apparently, some proven leaders. I'd like to see Trey Gowdy in the DOJ and Paul Ryan playing a major role in Finance.

I would hope that whoever the Democrats nominate has a successful history in governing, as we can see the problems inexperience causes. Hillary Clinton would be a similar disaster so I'm hoping that the best person wins, not necessarily whoever ran the slickest campaign or who the MSM supports. Maybe the voters learned a lesson from their experience with Barrack Obama.

What about you?
 
Hey W... do you recall the Houston dentist who had a son stuck in a Nuevo Laerdo jail ? Couldn't get him freed. sent some Texan's across the border who busted him out of jail and took him home to Houston. It took a while to discover who did the deed. The U.S refused to extradite.

I've always said if a tough job needs doing .. call a Texan; That might be what it will take in this case.

Wasn't born in Texas but sometimes I get a case of 'The London Homesick Blues'



Thom Paine

Even London Bridge, has fallen down, and moved to Arizona.......
 
You're like Pavlov's dog. I mention any republican and you salivate the word Hillary. Ruff, ruff.
Corruption about a possible Presidential candidate was mentioned so naturally Hillary Clinton's name springs to mind. Drug use was also mentioned so naturally Obama's name came up.

You should get used the idea that when politics are being discussed different names from different political parties may be mentioned. There are many leftists, though not you of course, who should move out of their mother's basement and learn to deal with the real world and all the heartaches and disappointments that may involve. They may become aduts.
 
Wow, I wonder if those laptops had the location of Osama? :cool:
 
Clinton, of course a liar, said he did not inhale. I've only heard accusations against George Bush, and although Obama has admitted to using pot and coke the rumor that he dealt in it has never been proven.

I'm sure no one really buys the "did not inhale" statement. They're pretty naive if they do. As for bush, I'm not sure:

Bush in his own words:

Later, an aide clarified the remarks, saying Bush has not used illegal drugs in at least the last 25 years.

"I've told the American people that years ago I made some mistakes. I've learned from my mistakes and should I be fortunate enough to become president I will bring dignity and honor to the office," said Bush -- his consistent response to repeated questions about whether he ever used illegal drugs.

Bush has been more specific on other mistakes from his past. For example, he has admitted to past drinking problems.

I'd infer from that that some of his "mistakes" involved drug use, but that could be wrong. Even if they did, it shouldn't disqualify him for office, but then, past mistakes shouldn't disqualify anyone from a responsible position as long as those mistakes aren't being repeated.

IMO, that is.
I disagree. He has a very good record in Texas and is a proven leader. If he is defeated it will be by party politic only and not the quality and experience of the candidate.


Based on his performance during the last campaign, he doesn't look electable to me, not unless the Democrats really screw up.

Of course, they've screwed up in the past.

Perry, Jindal maybe, Christie may come back, Romney also. I don't believe Cruz has enough experience, and the same with Rubio. There are others who may make a move and, apparently, some proven leaders. I'd like to see Trey Gowdy in the DOJ and Paul Ryan playing a major role in Finance.

I don't believe Perry is electable. Christie has a long way to overcome "bridgegate." Romney isn't going to run, and has said so more than once. We had our chance back in '12. Jindal is a possibility. I'd like to see Huntsman give it another go.

I suspect the final Republican candidate will be someone not currently on the radar. The final Democrat candidate will either be Hillary or someone not currently on the radar.

I would hope that whoever the Democrats nominate has a successful history in governing, as we can see the problems inexperience causes. Hillary Clinton would be a similar disaster so I'm hoping that the best person wins, not necessarily whoever ran the slickest campaign or who the MSM supports. Maybe the voters learned a lesson from their experience with Barrack Obama.

What about you?

Let's hope that whoever does finally win the WH has successful governing experience this time around.
 
I love your avatar. It really highlights the amount of uninhabited land in this country.

I love it too. It really highlights were the pockets of parasites and socialist live, doesn't it.
 
I love it too. It really highlights were the pockets of parasites and socialist live, doesn't it.

I love how they've convinced themselves that everyone collecting welfare is a Democrat.
 
I love how they've convinced themselves that everyone collecting welfare is a Democrat.

Who said anything about Democrats? :confused:
 
Based on his performance during the last campaign, he doesn't look electable to me, not unless the Democrats really screw up.
And that is part of the problem. It seems the electorate has become so involved in the showbiz of the campaign that we tend to ignore the candidates record and experience. It is a vote for the best campaigner, and often the freebies they promise, more than who would make the best President of the United States. This leaves room for charlatans with no real record of accomplishment to simply tell the people what they want to hear rather than pointing to their accomplishments and credibility.
I don't believe Perry is electable. Christie has a long way to overcome "bridgegate." Romney isn't going to run, and has said so more than once. We had our chance back in '12. Jindal is a possibility. I'd like to see Huntsman give it another go.
I think Perry is very electable after four years, Romney is 60-40 to run, 'bridgegate' was terribly over-hyped and should be ignored though Christie might lose for other reasons,, and Huntsman should seek the Democrat nomination. I like Jingal too but he doesn't have enough national exposure and, dare I say, certainly lacks in charisma. Ron Paul will go nowhere and Paul Ryan should wait.

I suspect the final Republican candidate will be someone not currently on the radar.
I get that feeling as well.
The final Democrat candidate will either be Hillary or someone not currently on the radar.
As with me that leaves a lot of room, but I don't believe Hillary can win.
Let's hope that whoever does finally win the WH has successful governing experience this time around.
Oh, you bet!! The country , and the world, is desperate for good (and hope Great) leadership. That's why I discount Hillary.
 
I love how they've convinced themselves that everyone collecting welfare is a Democrat.

The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare
August 20, 2014 - 4:35 AM


109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.

The Census Bureau has not yet reported how many were on welfare in 2013 or the first two quarters of 2014.

But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.

When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.

Subtract the 3,297,000 who were receiving veterans' benefits from the total, and that leaves 150,026,000 people receiving non-veterans' benefits.

The 153,323,000 total benefit-takers at the end of 2012, said the Census Bureau, equaled 49.5 percent of the population. The 150,026,000 taking benefits other than veterans' benefits equaled about 48.5 percent of the population.

When America re-elected President Barack Obama in 2012, we had not quite reached the point where more than half the country was taking benefits from the federal government.

It is a reasonable bet, however, that with the implementation of Obamacare — with its provisions expanding Medicaid and providing health-insurance subsidies to people earning up to 400 percent of poverty — that if we have not already surpassed that point (not counting those getting veterans benefits) we soon will.

What did taxpayers give to the 109,631,000 — the 35.4 percent of the nation — getting welfare benefits at the end of 2012?



  • [*=1]82,679,000 of the welfare-takers lived in households where people were on Medicaid, said the Census Bureau.
    [*=1]51,471,000 were in households on food stamps.
    [*=1]22,526,000 were in the Women, Infants and Children program.
    [*=1]20,355,000 were in household on Supplemental Security Income.
    [*=1]13,267,000 lived in public housing or got housing subsidies.
    [*=1]5,442,000 got Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.
    [*=1]4,517,000 received other forms of federal cash assistance.

How do you put in perspective the 109,631,000 people taking welfare, or the 150,026,000 getting some type of federal benefit other than veterans' benefits?

Well, the CIA World Factbook says there are 142,470,272 people in Russia. So, the 150,026,000 people getting non-veterans federal benefits in the United States at the end of 2012 outnumbered all the people in Russia.


63,742,977 people live in the United Kingdom and 44,291,413 live in the Ukraine, says the CIA. So, the combined 108,034,390 people in these two nations was about 1,596,610 less than 109,631,000 collecting welfare in the United States.

It may be more telling, however, to compare the 109,631,000 Americans taking federal welfare benefits at the end of 2012 to Americans categorized by other characteristics.

In 2012, according to the Census Bureau, there were 103,087,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States (including 16,606,000 full-time year-round government workers).

Thus, the welfare-takers outnumbered full-time year-round workers by 6,544,000.


California, the nation's most-populated state, contained an estimated 38,332,521 people in 2013, says the Census Bureau. Texas had 26,448,193 people, New York had 19,651,127, and Florida had 19,552,860. But the combined 103,984,701 people in these four massive states still fell about 5,646,299 short of the 109,631,000 people on welfare.
 
Who said anything about Democrats? :confused:

....what exactly did you think the blue shading referred to in that image?

My favorite parts of that image:

1) It's not from the 2008 or 2012 election, as it is often presented. It's from 2004.
2) Land doesn't vote.
 
And that is part of the problem. It seems the electorate has become so involved in the showbiz of the campaign that we tend to ignore the candidates record and experience. It is a vote for the best campaigner, and often the freebies they promise, more than who would make the best President of the United States. This leaves room for charlatans with no real record of accomplishment to simply tell the people what they want to hear rather than pointing to their accomplishments and credibility.
I think Perry is very electable after four years, Romney is 60-40 to run, 'bridgegate' was terribly over-hyped and should be ignored though Christie might lose for other reasons,, and Huntsman should seek the Democrat nomination. I like Jingal too but he doesn't have enough national exposure and, dare I say, certainly lacks in charisma. Ron Paul will go nowhere and Paul Ryan should wait.

I get that feeling as well. As with me that leaves a lot of room, but I don't believe Hillary can win.
Oh, you bet!! The country , and the world, is desperate for good (and hope Great) leadership. That's why I discount Hillary.

I agree with most of the above, particularly the part about the showbiz of the campaign.

I'd be very surprised to see Romney go back on his word not to run. He promised his wife he would not after all. Unlike most of the candidates, he's a man of principle.

While Bridgegate may be over hyped, you haven't seen anything yet compared to how hyped it will be if he becomes a serious candidate.

And don't discount Hillary as unelectable. She knows how to spin and how to campaign, after all, and that's what gets people elected.
 
:roll:

It's the 9/11-type paranoia starting up all over again.

Next, we will be seeing ISIS sighting's on every street corner, at every gas station.

America...grow a spine.

My biggest fear is that the threat of terrorism will fundamentally change America not from the terrorists attacks but from our own government. Another major attack on US soil and I could see Partiot Act II being put into place further eroding citizen privacy and granting more unenumerated powers to our government. There may come a point where our own government is much more of a threat to your average citizen than ISIS or another terrorist group ever will be.
 
My biggest fear is that the threat of terrorism will fundamentally change America not from the terrorists attacks but from our own government. Another major attack on US soil and I could see Partiot Act II being put into place further eroding citizen privacy and granting more unenumerated powers to our government. There may come a point where our own government is much more of a threat to your average citizen than ISIS or another terrorist group ever will be.

That is exactly what I am afraid of as well.

The paranoia after 9/11 that allowed the government to become ridiculously controlling truly disgusted me.

Another 9/11-style attack and I fear American's rights/freedoms will be restricted to a truly scary extent.
 
No need to be mysterious. Use your words.

If I used them the way I would like to I would be infracted. I chose to remain civil.
 
If I used them the way I would like to I would be infracted. I chose to remain civil.

I just asked you a simply question of "why would a hypothetical Texas army be made up of mostly Hispanics?" and you gave some snarky response.

And what's you assumption about how we think differently?
 
That is exactly what I am afraid of as well.

The paranoia after 9/11 that allowed the government to become ridiculously controlling truly disgusted me.

Another 9/11-style attack and I fear American's rights/freedoms will be restricted to a truly scary extent.

I have a strong feeling it would be one of those...'Don't let a good crisis go to waste', moments.
 
Back
Top Bottom