Cpac 2013

[Jermyn Davidson]

"Economics is not brain surgery."
- Dr. Ben Carson, CPAC 2013



FUNNY & AWESOME!

[Pressing-On]

CPAC 2013 - Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

"We are in a 50 year struggle in the conservative movement. The GOP elite is "just plain wrong"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4baBNRnels0

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

They had some very good Q & A panels. Thought that was a great touch.

Chris Christie is for gun control - that makes him not eligible for CPAC

And you are still perpetuating a lie about N-Head. That has all been discussed on this forum.

Anywaysss, this is my last political post for a long while. Just wanted to end with Jeb Bush, posting an article he wrote for the WSJ, and adding a couple of my observations.

• If he wrote this, he is a good writer.
  
• It sounds like he is hanging a carrot for people to want more info. He talked over the surface of many points.
  
• I saw a hint of Newt's style in the way he wrote.
  
• He is building the base for a more complex solution oriented dialogue.
  
• He wants to run really bad, that much is obvious.

Perpetuating a lie?

Whatever. Don't try to revise that narrative. Perry will never be President and I am glad.

However, I don't want to dwell on perry.
I am Dr. Ben Carson's newest fan!

He spoke so clearly and sensibly about taxes, humanitarianism, the nature of media outlets and more.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Perpetuating a lie?

Whatever. Don't try to revise that narrative. Perry will never be President and I am glad.

However, I don't want to dwell on perry.
I am Dr. Ben Carson's newest fan!

He spoke so clearly and sensibly about taxes, humanitarianism, the nature of media outlets and more.

He threw a stink bomb in the room during a recent interview when asked his view on gun control - "Depends on where you live." I guess the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply everywhere in his estimation? Otherwise, he is a great guy.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He threw a stink bomb in the room during a recent interview when asked his view on gun control - "Depends on where you live." I guess the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply everywhere in his estimation? Otherwise, he is a great guy.

I think his response reflects his assessment of working in the city of Baltimore-- one of the most violent cities in America when it comes to gun violence.

Like any other issue in America, "guns" in the context of 21st century America is a multi-faceted discussion.

Realistically, is there any gun that could adequately defend us against our government if for whatever reason, our government decided to become our enemy?

The honest answer is no.

While I am 2nd amendment proponent in today's discussion of "guns", the issue is not so easily cut and dry in our current urban situations. His answer reflects that reality.


Question for you. Do you think it would be against our Constitutional protection to allow the police to stop and frisk you at their will, whenever they saw you walking somewhere and thought you had the potential for being a lawbreaker?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't agree with either of your opinions of these two men, but that's okay, it's a free country. You don't want to discuss Romney's misleading ads. All of this has already been discussed as well.

I am listening to Romney' speech now, because I have to, but I'm not enjoying it. We'll tear him up on blog radio later.

Jindal isn't an exciting speaker, but he has substance. I liked his speech.

Romneys misleading ads? Again, I don't want to defend him, but he wasn't the only candidate making misleading ads. Your hatred of Romney blinds you. Explain "King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town." That was bought by a Gingrich PAC. Gingrich's campaign even used parts of it for their own ads. It was Perry who first mentioned Bain, but it was Newt who ran with it and gave the blueprint to Obama on how to beat Romney. You can thank Newt for Obama being re-elected.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

DM,
Newt is being interviewed by Greta. He has to be heartbroken watching all these people battle. He helped rebuild the party with Reagan after it fell apart from Nixon. And then he built the conservative movement to watch the RINO's and Bush destroy it. What a waste of the potential in this party...

I also believe that Newt is very pleased at what he is seeing from the new kids on the block, he looked like the cat that ate the canary. lol

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/...-the-record-7/

[Newt] rebuilt the party with Reagan....PO please. Gingrich never missed an opportunity to stab Reagan in the back and criticize him. That's a well-documented fact. He compared Reagan meeting Gorbachev to Chamberlain meeting Hitler. That is unforgivable. It's also fact that Reagan barely new Newt and only mentioned him once in his journals...and it wasn't a positive note. Suddenly now, Newt wants to revise history and pretend he was Reagan's bff? Please. That's the issue with Newt, he imagines himself greater than he is.

Newt will gravitate to whomever is popular at the moment. He loves the interviews, cameras, and attention on him.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Romneys misleading ads? Again, I don't want to defend him, but he wasn't the only candidate making misleading ads. Your hatred of Romney blinds you. Explain "King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town." That was bought by a Gingrich PAC. Gingrich's campaign even used parts of it for their own ads. It was Perry who first mentioned Bain, but it was Newt who ran with it and gave the blueprint to Obama on how to beat Romney. You can thank Newt for Obama being re-elected.


[Newt] rebuilt the party with Reagan....PO please. Gingrich never missed an opportunity to stab Reagan in the back and criticize him. That's a well-documented fact. He compared Reagan meeting Gorbachev to Chamberlain meeting Hitler. That is unforgivable. It's also fact that Reagan barely new Newt and only mentioned him once in his journals...and it wasn't a positive note. Suddenly now, Newt wants to revise history and pretend he was Reagan's bff? Please. That's the issue with Newt, he imagines himself greater than he is.

Newt will gravitate to whomever is popular at the moment. He loves the interviews, cameras, and attention on him.

I'll remind you of a conversation we have already had:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, a long article and well worth the read. I am more interested in getting into the details of the Bain type of functioning than I am on what the Dems will do with it.

What caused me to become curious was how Newt and Gov. Perry, totally, dropped the issue, like a bad egg, after their initial comments. My ears perked up when I saw that happening and I wanted to know more. I felt something that would hamper a GOP win was at stake and I wanted to know more.

I also knew that the Occupy Movement, although beginning with the premise of, "we owe them everything" (a leftist/Socialist view), it was also, to many, about the subject of Crony Capitalism and it's blatant unfairness. That is what this article, for me, addresses.

We don't really have to go far in any type of independent corroboration to know this to be true - "That is the modus operandi of the leveraged-buyout business, and in an honest free-market economy, there wouldn’t be much scope for it because it creates little of economic value. But we have a rigged system—a regime of crony capitalism—where the tax code heavily favors debt and capital gains, and the central bank purposefully enables rampant speculation by propping up the price of financial assets and battering down the cost of leveraged finance."

After reading the article, you can't honestly say it does not have merit.

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Yes, I agree that this is all worth further investigation, not for Romney's participation in the system, but because of the system itself. The system is broken. If there is such a thing as ethical capitalism (and I am a capitalist) , this is not it. So, while Romney and Bain may not have done anything illegal, it certainly appears they fully exploited a system which is itself broken and immoral.

Romney was never going to do anything about it. Never wanted to discuss the system he exploited. Newt and Perry were correct to bring up the issue. It is too huge of an issue to bring up during an election with sound bites, so they had to back off.

John Mackey in his new book, Conscious Capitalism, furthers the discussion on how we can correct it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I think his response reflects his assessment of working in the city of Baltimore-- one of the most violent cities in America when it comes to gun violence.

Like any other issue in America, "guns" in the context of 21st century America is a multi-faceted discussion.

Realistically, is there any gun that could adequately defend us against our government if for whatever reason, our government decided to become our enemy?

The honest answer is no.

While I am 2nd amendment proponent in today's discussion of "guns", the issue is not so easily cut and dry in our current urban situations. His answer reflects that reality.


Question for you. Do you think it would be against our Constitutional protection to allow the police to stop and frisk you at their will, whenever they saw you walking somewhere and thought you had the potential for being a lawbreaker?

There is a "stop and frisk" exception that can be enforced under suspicion. That has been law since 1968.

[deacon blues]

Thanks for the videos PO

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

There is a "stop and frisk" exception that can be enforced under suspicion. That has been law since 1968.

Do you know how the NYPD is enforcing that exception?

They have made that exception the rule as a way of fighting crime in what used to be one of our most violent cities.


Their approach could very well be seen as a violation of our most basic rights. However, those who support the NYPD's practice of that exception say that the violence requires their over-aggressive stop and frisk policies.


Sometimes, it's the strict gun laws in some of our urban areas that inadvertently leads to the arrest of the most violent criminals.


I am more prone to argue that the state and local governments have turned their penal systems into a means to make profits while creating a permanent underclass of law breakers through the creation and enforcement of unconstitutional laws and punishments that do nothing to rehabilitate their unscrupulous pogs.

However, if the urban municipalities are not as evil as I imagine them to be, do you think that they want even stricter gun control laws so that more people die, or do you think that their perspective on "guns" could be different from the rest of America?