It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ted Cruz: we are the party of the people..LOL..NO BS heactually said that

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I believe his statement to be true. Republicans believe in people working to improve themselves. Democrats believe government should be involved in everyone's life from cradle to grave. That is why you see give-away programs from Democrats.

It is best to work for a living as most do. People that live on the government dole are just lazy. I know there are a few that need government help from time to time. But to actually survive on a government hand out simply because people are to lazy to work is just WRONG.




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Learn the difference between investment income and earned income (wages) and then get back to me.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996


Wait, wait, wait ... there are no Democrats in that picture. Where are there jackets? I want to see there product endorsements.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Can anyone name legislation, created by, or supported by, Republicans in this Congress, or any other recent Congress that can be said to benefit or improve the lives or normal people, or, as we're now called, the bottom 90%?

List the legislation.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I'd have to go through a lot of them, but there have been quite a few House bills that were insta-killed by the Senate. Many of them were jobs bills.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I'd have to go through a lot of them, but there have been quite a few House bills that were insta-killed by the Senate. Many of them were jobs bills.



A lot, really? Try using congress.gov ... there's a great search system there to help you find real examples of your claim.

Oh, and for the sake of time, nothing that puts more money in the pockets of the 10% qualifies as a "jobs bill" ... can we agree on that?

The "trickle down theory" or what GHW Bush called "Voodoo Economics" has been thoroughly discredited, at this point.

I look forward to your evidence.

edit on 10Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:50:59 -060015p102015266 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
In other news, this Cruzian crap reminds me of the buggy load of it they're trying to push now with the "Republicans have always been on the side of minorities, it was the Democrats that were pro-slavery, anti-Civil Rights" garbage.

The last Republican President that can be said in any way to have supported equal rights was Eisenhower.

Goldwater (who didn't get elected), Nixon (who did), Reagan and the Bushes have all been strong adherents to the "Southern Strategy."

Southern Strategy - Wiki (for quick reference)




In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.

Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in the late 1960s. The strategy was successful in winning the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.) for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, but he won in only one other state, Arizona, his home state. The Southern Strategy also yielded five formerly Confederate states (Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee) in Richard Nixon's successful 1968 campaign for the presidency. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began attempting to appeal to black voters again, though with little success.


This new move is just as asinine ... but I will give the Republicans a small bit of credit ... they may have learned a wittle tiny bit from Romney getting bit in the hind-end with his 47% BS.

We'll see, I guess, how things actually play out.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Here ... I'll do you a favor. Here are John Boehner's "46 jobs bills" that were blocked in the Senate of the 113th Congress.

Speaker.gov - 46 Jobs Bills Stalled in the Senate

I'll even give you first pick at something you may think is actually a "jobs bill" rather than more typical Republican jargon.

Then, when you find one or two, let's figure out why they haven't been sent through in the last 6 weeks that Mitch has been in control of the Senate in the 114th Congress.

If I remember correctly, there's been one bill sent to the President, which he signed. So far.

By the way, it has been typical for bills passed by the House to be stuck in the Senate over the last 20 years or so, with the average number being around 200 or so. Are 300 House Bills Really Bottled Up in the Senate?

The answer is yes, but the other part of the answer is: same as it ever was.
edit on 11Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:43:23 -060015p112015266 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Well said...right up to the "Binary system". As opposed to what?

Name the improvement.

Men of good will is more fundamental than a political system. Any political system. We have lost our Judeo-Christian moral code. Top to bottom. Economic strata is irrelevant.

Without that, or an equivalent, this becomes nothing more than an academic exercise.....



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66 Garbage? Which party did the KKK align with? Southern Democrats.

Is Cruz's comment a bit of a stretch? I suppose so. Although real job growth- not part time, not minimum wage- is the right's priority. That's as non-racial as it gets. if he refers to Obama awarding work rights to unskilled, 'undocumented workers" who now also have been award 'earned income tax credit' from the IRS- nothing earned about it- on top of $3,000 to every employer that hires a newly documented worker, then Cruz probably spot on.

Who suffers under this discriminatory, civil rights violating, Democrat agenda? That's right! The minorities who ARE legal and competing for those jobs.

So spare us from your myopic, self-righteous indignation.

Cruz is saying nothing different than what the Dems have used as their template for decades against the right. It has always been an insult, to me personally and to all the average conservative voters over the years.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

And the key part of that is SOUTHERN. As long as the Southern states could stalemate the Democratic party, they did so. When the party turned toward Civil Rights, the Southern states left and become Republican, and that was part of the so-called "Southern Strategy" employed by Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes. It's the reason the South is fairly uniformly Red today.

List one bill created by the Republicans in the 113th or 114th Congress that creates real job growth. Giving more money to the richest 10% ain't it. Cutting taxes ain't it. Bush cut taxes and deregulated and all that happened was an economic collapse.

You're muddling your issues ... partisan hatred for immigration reform is for another thread.

Frankly, your post is full of it, in my opinion.

Describe the so-called discriminatory, civil rights violating, Democrat agenda? Is the whole basis of that idea that jobs your "job creators" haven't created that should be going to minorities are instead going to be taken by immigrants?

I do have to admit, that's pretty pure mainline BS ... I'll give you that.

Please, spare us your trite, backward, mimicked attempts to employ standard Republican cant ... [deleted for snark]

Why is the Republican party known as the party of the rich? of corporate America? of racism? Because that's what it has been. Look at the platforms of your party since the 1980s and prove anything differently. You can't change how people feel about your party simply because you don't agree.

However, if the winds are changing, I'll be glad to see it ... I'd be glad to see both parties trying to do something for the 90%.

... but Cruz's blatant lies aren't the seachange that anyone is looking for.
edit on 21Mon, 09 Feb 2015 21:03:09 -060015p092015266 by Gryphon66 because: noted



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So what ARE "Job Bills"?

This is an example of what I'd call a 'job bill'. Withdraw from the W.T.O.. Place an immediate 10% import duty on all manufactured goods-exempting Canada and Mexico- increasing that import duty by 10% in six months and one more time in a year.

Now that's a Job Bill.

Further, with the exception of infrastructure, gov't positions that exist to enforce the rampant regulatory increases on our businesses, be they EPA, ObamaCare, etc. as anti-job bills. They kill job growth.

Any bill which frees up the private sector from debilitating regulations which decrease competition with the rest of the world is a JOB BILL.

The XL Pipeline legislation is a JOB BILL.

Get the idea??



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That, sir, is an outright fabrication. The southern democrats stayed 'democrats' for decades after that legislation. (Byrd being the signal example.)

The south has only recently seen the dramatic shift to the republican side. As usual, the race card is played and in fact has little bearing on that move to the right. The continued erosion of traditional values, the constitution-especially under Obama- the continued worsening of many aspects of the black community that has been betrayed by the promises of the left even has Black leaders decrying the Democrats.

The timing of the Ferguson media hype, the 'war on women' all an attempt to distract the voting public has failed. Yet again, a massive right win. ( I will admit that win is based on the sheer lunacy of Obama and Co. and not on any specific Republican national platform).

Those are far worse, in my estimation, than anything Cruz has uttered. Of course you ignore those....and that's why you lost...



edit on 9-2-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Can you cite the Republican bill that withdraws us from the WTO? How about the duty increase?

Yes, we all saw the result of Republican style deregulation through 2000-2007 in 2008. But keep saying it,

Describe some of these debilitating regulations.

XL Pipeline is a JOB BILL for whom? Certainly not Americans.

Yeah, I do get the idea, actually.

You're doing nothing more than espousing the same failed policies Republicans always front for, like say Big Oil.



The same fossil fuel interests pushing the Keystone pipeline have been cutting, not creating, jobs: Despite generating $546 billion in profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP reduced their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that period. In 2010 alone, the top five oil companies slashed their global workforce by 4,400 employees “” the same year executives paid themselves nearly $220 million. But at least those working in the industry as a whole get paid high wages, right? Turns out that 40 percent of U.S oil-industry jobs consist of minimum-wage work at gas stations. Instead of bankrolling an industry that is laying off workers and threatening our economic future, isn’t it time to take the billions in subsidies going to oil companies and invest instead in a sector that both creates jobs and protects the planet?


Source

I know the "protects the planet" thing will probably stick your craw, but it's still a great question.

But, let's go to a standard Conservative media outlet and see what they're saying:




The economic and energy security arguments used in favor of the pipeline aren’t really that strong. The surge in domestic natural gas production, the rising global cost of oil, and the economic bust of 2008 have changed the energy equation dramatically. America has been steadily reducing its oil addiction. Oil consumption has dropped by 2.5 million barrels a day over the last eight years. That’s equivalent to closing a Keystone XL every three years.

The $45 billion annual revenue anticipated to be generated by the pipeline in the U.S. could be tripled by just reversing the sequester alone. The pipeline is not a make-or-break deal for the American economy or even our energy security.


Forbes Magazine - What is Wrong with the XL Pipeline



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, we agree on each others points. Pure Bull.

If you cannot envision the effects of adding millions to the job market-place, especially when there is a shortage of those jobs, then myopic is a huge understatement. Giving 3k to employers that hire these people isn't discriminatory and a violation of civil rights?

You are not myopic, your blind.

Now add in an earned income credit on top of it?

Surely you jest...Surely.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Did you miss-read that? I was saying that I would consider that a Job Bill. Not that is has occurred or even been suggested. Neither party has the guts for that. I was my reference on what job bills really are. Certainly nothing called Job Bills by congress ever are.

As far as the XL Pipeline is concerned. First , it will be built by American workers. Those are JOBS. Hence a job bill.

Whether the refined product is ultimately destined domestically or not is irrelevant and is typical of left spin. Actually, the Canadian crude is to be mixed with N.D. crude which is ideal for gulf refineries.

The reason it's been blocked by Obama is due to the ownership of BNSF by Buffet, an Obama supporter, who has spent hundreds of millions constructing oil storage facilities at rail terminals in anticipation of that added transportation.

Another reason your point is useless is that oil will get to the gulf refineries either way. By rail or by pipeline.

Having both adds jobs from the pipeline side of it to the rail terminal jobs already created. Having both gives a modicum of competition between the two instead of a virtual monopoly on it's transportation.

With both, we have more jobs and an alternative/competition between the two.

Get the idea?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Are you kidding me? Do you think this is Fox News where you get to claim anything no matter how ludicrous and go unchallenged?

What states did Goldwater carry in 1964? Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina (aka the Deep South) and Arizona, his home state.

Yeah, you guys always trot out Byrd and Strom Thurmond because that's all you've got. Oh, wait, Strom became a Republican, didn't he?



In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena." In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions." Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."

Robert Byrd

Which party (less the Southerners) overwhelmingly introduced and supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That's right, the Democrats.

Which party (less the Southerners) overwhelmingly introduced and supported the Civil Rights Act of 1968? That's right, the Democrats.

Recently? Starting when, 1994? 20 years ago? You have an odd picture of recently.

Look up the Southern Strategy



The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in the late 1960s. The strategy was successful in winning the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.) for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, but he won in only one other state, Arizona, his home state. The Southern Strategy also yielded five formerly Confederate states (Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee) in Richard Nixon's successful 1968 campaign for the presidency. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began attempting to appeal to black voters again, though with little success.

In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the NAACP for ignoring the black vote and exploiting racial conflicts.


Why would the Chairman of the RNC APOLOGIZE to Black America? Shall I quote Lee Atwater again?



Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-----, n-----, n-----." By 1968 you can't say "n-----" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N-----, n------."


"Continued erosion of traditional values"? What would that be, pray tell?

Be specific, what has Barack Obama done to the Constitution? Executive Orders? Then every POTUS since George Washington has done the same thing.

I haven't lost anything. What a childish comment. The last election was the lowest voter turnout since WW2. Even so there was less than a 5% difference in most races, and in several it was more like 2%. Keep crowing while your Red Congress sinks every chance your party has in the next Presidential Election and for the next 20 years.

What a joke.

edit on 22Mon, 09 Feb 2015 22:47:04 -060015p102015266 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

originally posted by: nwtrucker

As far as the XL Pipeline is concerned. First , it will be built by American workers. Those are JOBS. Hence a job bill.



You don't happen to have any evidence for that, do you?

Or should we take it on faith?

Your party is big on faith.

China owns a majority of the oil sands in Canada. The oil will go to China and other markets. That is, if it doesn't poison the American water tables in the midwest before it gets there. Or weren't you aware of the leaky pipes the current Keystone line is known for?

Oh, that's right, Republicans worship Big Oil and spills are good for the environment, right?

How good will the poisoning of the American Midwest so that China can get their oil through the US be for US jobs?

Oh, but that's just more silly leftist rhetoric right? There would never been any big oil spills because Big Oil can't be bothered to take care of their own equipment without regulations, would there?

Right, a jobs bill ... are they good-paying long-term jobs?



First, let’s start with the basics. The Keystone XL pipeline is a construction project, and so the most direct jobs are related to construction. These are basically short-term jobs, lasting on average 19.5 weeks, to assemble the pipeline that would help carry heavy crude oil from Canada’s Alberta province to the Gulf Coast. Over two construction seasons, the main beneficiaries of the project would be Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska — each would need to hire between 2,700 and 4,000 construction workers — though Kansas would also hire about 200.

Because of the difficulty in determining whether the project would last one or two years, the State Department decided to express all of the jobs as an annual figure. So those 4,000 construction workers in Montana who work for 19 weeks were turned into nearly 1,500 jobs on annual basis. All told, 10,400 construction workers, engaged for four- or eight-month periods, are expressed in the State Department report as 3,900 jobs — one position that is filled one full year — even though none of the jobs actually last a year.


Washington Post

But I'm sure it will be the workers' fault when the jobs run out in less than a year, right? Because, anyone out of work is just lazy, in the Republican scenario.

And of course, anytime the facts disagree with the rhetoric, it's just leftist propaganda.

"Get the idea?" What idea? The same tired BS that Republicans always push???

edit on 22Mon, 09 Feb 2015 22:39:20 -060015p102015266 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, we agree on each others points. Pure Bull.

If you cannot envision the effects of adding millions to the job market-place, especially when there is a shortage of those jobs, then myopic is a huge understatement. Giving 3k to employers that hire these people isn't discriminatory and a violation of civil rights?

You are not myopic, your blind.

Now add in an earned income credit on top of it?

Surely you jest...Surely.



My eyesight is just fine. Your's though ... more like "the blind leading the blind."

Factcheck.org



FULL QUESTION
Is the following statement true? It is from Fox News.com/politics

Businesses reportedly will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers under President Obama’s sweeping action on illegal immigration.

FULL ANSWER
This issue arises from a curious intersection between the Affordable Care Act and President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

Under the ACA, employers may be required to pay penalties if their employees are eligible for tax credits to purchase health insurance through the law’s new marketplaces. But those who gain provisional legal status under Obama’s immigration plan are not eligible for health care subsidies — leading some Republicans and conservative media outlets to say this creates an incentive for employers to hire those with provisional legal status over U.S. citizens.

Health care experts say that could happen, but only in rare circumstances. And, according to a White House official, an employer who knowingly hires or fires employees based on their eligibility for health care tax credits could run afoul of discrimination provisions written into the law.


More "much ado about nothing."
edit on 3Tue, 10 Feb 2015 03:11:53 -060015p032015266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Evidence that the Pipeline, built in America will be built by American workers? What? have you lost it totally?

Who would it be built by, Tibetans?

Re the south. This election, a clean sweep for the Republicans. FIRST TIME ever. Why would you connect that to racial legislation of the past?

Other than it's the same old, same old, rhetoric for 30 years and more. No one buys it any more. Even the previously democrat voting public has given you guys a hint....and STILL you ignore it.

That's O.K.. Keep you tirade up on Cruz. Ignore the election results. No self-criticism whatsoever from the left means continued debacles...perfect



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join