It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 12:25 PM
a reply to: desert

I don't know the chap.

Distrust of government and political party, at least to a degree, is, especially these days, a healthy thing. IMO.

Overcoming distrust can also be described as 'show me' or 'prove it'. Can one really argue that that view doesn't have merit? I think not.

The question is where to draw the line. The balance point. Get three people together and there will be disagreement..

I surmise most conservatives on these boards largely ignore these kind of threads. They are non-stop, seeking to pull a specific point/comment and magnify it beyond all reasonable importance when measured against the whole body of data.

Yes, both sides are guilty of it. More in the politicians themselves.

In the case of this thread, trying to position/imply Reagan with any form of racist views, be it in the south or not, is so disingenuous as to approach a shill's template. One doesn't carry 49 0f 50 States with a 'racist' platform after 4 years service as President.

To me it reflects the on-going efforts by the media, to stress incidents for the express purpose of misdirecting attention from events that should be looked at more thoroughly.

This thread is a perfect example of that.

I appreciate your response.

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:06 PM
a reply to: nwtrucker

What fact was that again? There's so much opinion to shuffle through ...

You're going to cite me for generalizing? LOL. That's a good one.

My agenda is clear? To counter your continued nonsense with facts? Sure hope so.

Race-schmace. You don't have any counter to anything I've said. You offer nothing in return except your opinion and right-wing babble. When you have no answer, you claim "race card." Apparently, you have no answer.

Why are you so concerned about what our fellow members think about me because I didn't kow-tow to your shtick?

Look at the stars if you're interested in popularity contests; me, I'm more interested in factual discussion.

Since your posts show no signs of that, I'll be glad to take your departure from "the game" as you call it.


posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:37 PM
As I said. I will continue to point out the obvious garbage of your posts as they occur. You can continue to dive behind your equally biased Links all day.

In summary, the Republicans are not racist.

More damage has been done to the black community from Democrat policy, by far, than any Republican acts. (I include the act of 1964).

Actually, I enjoys seeing your rebuts. Stars? There is bunch of you out there, isn't there?

Once again, I will point out the last election results. You are losing.

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:18 PM
a reply to: nwtrucker

Can you point to a claim I've made that states that all Republicans are racist?

How can direct quotes from three Republican National Committee Chairmen be biased? Answer: they aren't

You brought up popularity with our fellow members, not me. I simply answered you, with facts.

The last election results? Right. A national 2-3% or so margin of "victory" when less than a third of Americans bothered? Hold on to your scorecard; 2016 is on the way!

I have a suggestion, let's get back to the topic: in your opinion, Trucker, what specific legislation have the Republicans passed/supported that help the majority of Americans? You've already stated your opinion on the Keystone XL, so we've got that one.

What else? What is Senator Cruz talking about? Specifically.

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:30 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

This is my evidence.

My suggestion to you is let's dissect this post, it's implications and the intent behind it.

You can defend it and I will point out the spin/falsehoods.

As far as your suggestion goes, you can surmise that I have neither the time nor the inclination for a breakdown of either party's proposed legislation in the last Congress.

To be fair, both party's proposed legislations would have to be listed and similarly dissected.

As any democrat legislation wasn't getting past the Republican majority and the republican bills wouldn't get pass the senate and if by some miracle passed by the senate, Obama would have vetoed it. One can assume any proposed legislation was nothing more than political rhetoric by both sides as they knew it wasn't going to become law in any case.

( Exceptions prove the rule)

Therefore, it flat our isn't worth my time. Nice try, though.

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:06 PM
a reply to: nwtrucker

I am willing to bet that no one here is interested in your commentary on my commentary on your commentary.

If you want to share counter-evidence (which is not just more right-wing opinion) feel free.

You have neither "the time nor the inclination" to back up your repeated claim here that the Republicans are the "Party of the People"? So you're not interested in actual debate with facts, figures, quotes, etc. ... you just want to spread your particular brand of wisdom free of all evidence?

Fair enough. Thanks for the honesty. Not interested at all in anything else you have to say. Your opinion is predictable: pure Republican cant.

Cheers, and enjoy chatting into the silence.

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:08 PM
Alright, there's one down. Who else?

I believe that there is another side to this argument.

What are the Republicans doing FOR THE PEOPLE of the United States that isn't merely a continuation of supply-side economics?

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 06:12 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Alright, there's one down. Who else?

I believe that there is another side to this argument.

What are the Republicans doing FOR THE PEOPLE of the United States that isn't merely a continuation of supply-side economics?

Well... Their antics occasionally give me something something ridiculous to laugh at, something to roll my eyes at, something to get pissed about. Does that count?


edit on 051FridayuAmerica/ChicagoFebuFridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:00 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL. I never said the republicans are the party of the people. LMAO.

Neither one are.

You avoid facts, twist them to suit your agenda.

You ARE entertaining though.

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:02 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 09:23 PM
a reply to: BlueMule

Republicans as comic relief? LOL

Here's the thing. Those Republicans we were talking about in the 60s? They were a different breed than today.

President Eisenhower was a man of his time, but he seems to me like a good and decent man, with some major weaknesses.

I believe strongly that we need strong individuals that are fiscally conservative as well as fiscally liberal.

Socially, I become fairly libertarian ... 99% of my personal life is no business of any government local, State or Federal.

posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 11:11 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What are the Republicans doing FOR THE PEOPLE of the United States that isn't merely a continuation of supply-side economics?

And THAT is the $64,000 question....wait, for today's value....ok, roughly, $600,000 question...

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:49 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

IMO, nw, since 1980, American culture has been based on not questioning. Questioning was what the protests and cultural changes of the 1960-70s was all about, and the election of 1980 was a signal that all that "unAmericanism" and "rabble rousing" would change. Elect the correct politicians and then sit back and not question, believe a conservative religion that relies on not questioning authority. Mistrust will do us no good, but QUESTIONING AUTHORITY will. Trust but question. Ask "WHY?". IMO distrust of our govt is not good, but questioning authority is what every American needs to do.

In the words of another American sniper (this one anti-war), Garett Reppenhagen, "If you really want to be a patriotic American, keep both eyes open and maintain 360 degrees of awareness. ... Ensure the perceived enemy in your vision is what it seems."

"Ensure the perceived enemy in your vision is what it seems" For decades, the perceived enemy were the followers of cultural wedge issues thrown our way to distract us and keep us farther and farther apart. While we the people were fighting in the front yard, the true destroyers of America as we knew it were inside robbing our home blind.

Talk is cheap, and many media demagogues should be the poorest around, if it weren't for the big bucks they make with their cheap talk. Ted Cruz, at least, really believes what he says, but he's plain wrong. Question Ted as to exactly HOW Reaganomics has worked for the "little people", and he would probably be as silent as South Park's underwear gnomes.

As for racism in politics, when Lyndon Johnson said at the time that his signing the Civil Rights bills would lose his party's Southern Democrats "for a generation", he understood how deep racism (and perhaps more important, white supremacy) was in the deep South. (David Duke was a Southern Democrat up until the late 1980s, when he switched to the GOP.) The GOP also understood and was sure happy to put out the welcome mat for the racist, white supremacist Democrats. While individual Republicans might not be racist/white supremacist, the Southern racists/white supremacists they took in ended up being their tar baby.

As to Ronald Reagan himself personally being racist, I have no idea; but many white males (and wives) by 1980 were willing to vote Republican to help rid the country of what they perceived as giveaways to "minorities" via college financial help, "affirmative action", etc. One thing I do know, having had Reagan as my Governor, he quietly stood by the gay community, as coming from Hollywood he had had fellow gay actors and did not hold the animosity as others did. He refused to sign an irrational ant-gay law in CA.
edit on 15-2-2015 by desert because: spl punct gr

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:59 AM

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: buster2010

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

The taxation should be no different between them. Income is income no matter where it comes from. Imo the people that actually work for their money should pay less than a person that does nothing for their money.

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 11:56 AM
a reply to: buster2010

Yeah right. There already is a second tax for those who had any money left-over from the first tax/rape, it's called capital gains tax. Survive that one and they get you with the inheritance tax.

Here's a public money saver you'd apparently endorse. Take it all the first go-around in the income tax. We'd be able to cut expenses by removing the need for the last two taxes....

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 12:09 PM
Have there been any real supporting evidense mentioned in this thread yet to support the claims of the Republicans being the party of the people?

Just wondering. I havent read every page of the thread yet, but am thinking that there hasnt been any supporting evidense to support such a claim. So I'd rather not waste my time reading excuses rather than supporting evidense.

Anything worthy mentioned yet in support of such a claim? Thanks in advance.

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:41 PM
a reply to: desert

I agree with much of your post. There are a couple I feel are hyperbole and one that I disagree with.

"Reaganomics"/Trickle-down Economics are nothing more than political jingoisms invented by the left in the 80's.
In fact, Reagan's economic policies, from what I can see, were in an virtual lock-step with JFK's economic policies.

I tried to find a recording of a JFK lecture to, I believe, students at Harvard that could be transcribed, word for word to both Reagan's and current Republican policy. Couldn't find that one. However, this one is close, "JFK's Speech on the State of the American Economy" Dated Aug. 13, 1962." It's on You Tube if your interested.

Reagan often cited JFK and his income tax cuts which resulted in JFK's economic recovery is '61-'62.

(Hey, Buster 2010, you might listen to this lecture, but be warned, it will shake you up seeing how far the 'left' has gone left since then. It's a the biggest reason I left the Democrat party.)

It is more accurately labeled capitalism. Which JFK was, a capitalist. Reagan followed suit..

On the exaggeration of the 'racist south's' move to the Republican Party.

First, I'm sure you'd admit the racist portion of the south was a minority. That that racist segment has been decreasing is size and influence since the sixties, as well.

To cite Reagan's re-election, he carried 49 of 50 States. I'm also sure you don't believe those 'non-southern' states were 'racist', per say, either.

Therefore, there were other reason's for Reagan's election and the gradual yet steady growth of the Republican party, overall since the '60s, other than "racism"? Yes?

Reason's like a strong Christian base in the south that perhaps took umbrage to the direction the left was going? A general disaffection with the Democrat Party, in general, as in the rest of the country has shown?

With no disrespect intended, you post was very civil, I suggest, at the very least, that this 'race card' is overplayed and timed to cover the failure of Democrat policies as manifested by the last election.

A rope-a-dope tactic no different than the 'war on women' gambit played in the campaign prior to the last election.

Neither got traction with the voting public.

In general, if the OP had spent the proportional amount of time on the questionable quotes of Biden, Reid, Feinstein,Sharpton and so on, he might have gotten less 'yawns' when raising Cruz's..

posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 10:47 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

Reagan channeled Kennedy and Obama channels Reagan for his tax cuts

Thanks for the Kennedy info. I read transcript.
When people bring up Kennedy's tax cuts, they focus on the cuts and ignore that he favored closing loopholes, what to some is "raising taxes". Under those terms, then Reagan also "raised taxes".

Kennedy's "tax cuts" (only a part of "Reaganomics" conservative commentator Paul Harvey first coined it) were intended as temporary changes. Let's say my husband and I take our pickup to the coast and want to drive on the beach. We can take the tires down to 10% pressure (tax cut) and drive on the soft sand. Letting air out worked! Let's say we instead drive in our favorite place, hard pack desert roads, and take the psi down to 10%. Problem!

What has been happening is that the extremists right mantra of "cut taxes!" pushed George W. Bush to cut taxes during two wars costing trillions (leaving those trillions to be paid by future generations), jobs leaving the country, increased insourcing of workers. Problems!

Thom Hartmann writes about how economic philosophy became political philosophy
Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years

Re Reagan second term.

Enough Americans were willing to give RR another term, for all of the reasons I've mentioned in above prior posts. Plus,the Middle Class still had their wealth after the recession, American voters were still high on a return to "peace through strength", and Reagan exuded the confidence and charm they needed to feel after the Carter years as you mentioned.

The Middle Class had yet to be hit by the mid 1980s S&L crisis, coc aine from the Central American war, Iran-Contra, and the farm crisis.

Now, I am done with discussing Reagan. The Two Santa Clauses helps explain why Ted Cruz is wrong.
edit on 16-2-2015 by desert because: one word for clarity

posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 01:27 PM
a reply to: desert

I wish I had found that original speech By JFK to those Harvard kids. The whole thing was explaining the tax cut and it's effect on the economy. Of the portions I heard, and it's been a while, at no point did anything he say imply the cuts were temporary. It would have been totally contradictory to his arguments for it in the first place.

My swinish suspicion is some post-JFK spin on the tax cuts being temporary.

On Cruz being wrong. Well, maybe this is fancy footwork on my part, but I will spew it anyways.

This may also be a key difference between left and right. Here goes, I consider economic growth, and with it job growth as the most liberating act possible . It benefits everyone. Rich, poor, middle class, entry level types, immigrants...the works. If not outright economic 'freedom' at the least economic wiggle-room.

Rightly or wrongly any moves that unfetter business ends up labeled pandering to the rich.

Somewhere there's a balance between the two and from the economic indicators it's out of balance. Job creation seems to be more service than manufacturing, hence lower pay, less hours-ObamaCare- or public sector. The only significant job growth is in the oil industry-a fact Obama takes credit for- and little else.

From that view, Cruz has a point, unfettering our businesses is as 'for the people' as it gets.

I await the backlash....LOL

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:27 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

I should have used a better word than "temporary", maybe "changeable"? It used to be that fooling around with the tax code was one way to keep an economy on an even keel, providing business incentives for investment (think home mortgage deduction as an incentive for the home construction industry, depreciation, etc), providing funds to govts to function, etc. The Bush tax cuts had an expiration date.

That is economic theory. But as The Two Santa Clauses Theory illustrates, Reagan's economic theory became right extremist political theory.

"job growth as the most liberating act possible"...yay! Glad you like how Obama turned around the economy!

Too bad all the jobs sent out of he country were not replaced with comparable jobs here. Major failure on the part of the economy. Business certainly didn't create new jobs to replace the jobs gone out of country.

Now, I'm gonna share a little secret with ya. Out here, high school kids with the technical certificate are getting jobs for $25/hour in the alternative energy field.

"I consider economic growth, and with it job growth as the most liberating act possible" ...agree! Why is that considered a purview of the "right"? Why is it that the "left" is labeled godless, Communist, anti-capitalist etc? Only conservatives are employers, own businesses, and are rich? Maybe Frank Luntz helped spread this myth? All of us "we the little people" Americans have been sold a bill of goods, sold to the highest foreign bidder, and sold out by money in politics.

Who Broke America’s Jobs Machine? Hint: it wasn't Obama, it began in the 1980s, and it involves favoring monopolies.

As I heard someone say on the Thom Hartmann Show, "business doesn't want govt in the way just as criminals don't want cops in the way". Very apropo. Ted should stick to religion. He'ld rain down fire and brimstone, and could make big bucks off his preaching. And wouldn't sound so silly in govt. I wish God would tell Ted's father that He has other plans for ole Ted.

I've gotta be away from my favorite computer for a few days.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in