Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

GOP Convention

Henry_VlIl Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 9:56 PM
I asked him about Newt Gingrich. He said, "Newt was a victim of the Main Stream Media." And how about Ronald Reagan, scion of Republican family values virtuosity? He said, "I'm sure God forgave Ronald Reagan for getting divorced for he was married to a wicked woman." Here's what Jesus says, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
In response to:

GOP Convention

Henry_VlIl Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 9:56 PM
I've had this Republican living in my neighborhood for the past 12 years now, and has been a member of the Tea Party for almost two years. About 10 years ago he stated, "When BJ Clinton gets out of office, Hillary is going to divorce him!" And then, a little later, when it looked like Hillary Clinton was going to be elected US Senator, he said, "After the Election, those two shall surely get divorced." He says he is a strong family values man and can not stand 'BJ Clinton' because he betrayed his wife. I asked him what he thought about Rush Limbaugh. He stated, "He is my hero!" I told him that Rush has been married and divorced about three times. He told me, "It doesn't matter, he's not a politician."
I met a Tea Party guy a while ago. He said he would never stand for government run health care. I asked him if the Veteran's Administration is government run health care. He said, "NO!, it is a completely separate organization." Dear friends, if a Tea-Party person would never, ever put up with government run health care for himself and his family; why would he make a veteran who has risked his life and perhaps has come home physically harmed or mentally impaired be forced to submit to government run health care with their associated 'death panels?' Now, is this Tea Party Patriot a statist and socialist?
In response to:

The Need to Explain

Henry_VlIl Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 9:31 PM
I talked to a Tea-Partier and asked, "Do you think the Republicans are going to finally cut something from the government this time around?" He answered, "Don't tell anyone this, but now we believe in the supply-side theory of economics again." (Don't all Republicans?) I asked, "What is supply-side theory?" The Tea partier said, "Tax cuts increase revenues!!! The American people do not want to see we Republicans cut anything from the government or else a higher tax rate would have to accommodate the drop in the budget! Isn't that crystal clear", he said with a smile. Expect this group of Republicans elected in 2010 to go for yet another BIG GOVERNMENT TEAT-SUCK FOR THEMSELVES.
In response to:

The Need to Explain

Henry_VlIl Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 9:08 PM
Let's say a major oil reserve is found off of the Virginia coast. An oil company taps into it and then signs a long term oil contract to sell that oil to China. Heaven Forbid! After mentioning this possibility to the Tea Partier, he declared that the state should order the company to sell it to the state's consumers at a discount. I told the Tea-Partier that Glenn Beck would describe this as Communism, Fascism or Collectivism! Who is this Tea-Partier to tell a private company that used its own risk capital on how to run its very own business? Can't we all agree that Tea-Partiers who behave like so are phony conservatives?
In response to:

The Need to Explain

Henry_VlIl Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 9:08 PM
I met a Tea-Partier a few days after Obama declared that drilling could begin off the Virginia coast. The Tea-Partier was from New Hampshire. He hoped drilling could begin off of the coast of his state. I mentioned that it doesn't really behoove any state to have an attitude of 'drill here, drill now' as new oil production would play only a small part in the world's oil supply and a major oil find would not substantially lower prices for him. An ocean state's tourism could be hampered due to drilling (oil spills, the vista) and may negatively affect the state's tourism appeal. (who wants to see oil derricks when sun bathing?) Any state has tremendous downside potential by allowing drilling yet little upside.
In response to:

The Need to Explain

Henry_VlIl Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 8:09 PM
Republican have been saying that "Democrats like Big government." It's so true! The Democrats also know that these programs cost money. They need to be funded. Life is not all about eating 'cake and ice cream' (entitlements) and not having to take your medicine (taxes). Life is about both. Republicans are clueless or maybe, perhaps, they want to destroy our country by "starving the beast." Republicans are poor stewards of the government and the economy. For them it's all about handing out the spending programs (cake) and then getting excited about an assortment of tax cuts. (no medicine for you!)
In response to:

G.W. was MIA

Henry_VlIl Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 7:55 PM
DEFUND THE REPUBLICAN SOCIALIST MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION FIRST! Republicans talk about the Democrats attitude toward socialized health care in the USA. But what of themselves? I can make the case that Republicans are unrepentant Socialist and corporate welfare-istas. It was the George W. Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress who added the $50 billion a year Medicare Prescription, Part D program, while claiming it would only cost $40 billion a year. Can't we all agree the Democrats can learn something about implementing more socialized medicine in a timely manner form the Republican Party!?
Is socialism the redistribution of wealth?
In response to:

O'Reilly's Sweet Grapefruit

Henry_VlIl Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 7:36 PM
My fellow conservatives are quick to point out that spending tax dollars on defense is constitutional. I whole-heartedly agree! But, is spending $363 million for obese spouses a matter of national security, defense, and hence, CONSTITUTIONAL? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057726/Military-spent-363million-WEIGHT-LOSS-surgery-obese-soldiers-wives-years.html
In response to:

U.S. Foreign Policy: Room to Regroup

Henry_VlIl Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 7:23 PM
Because only 10 percent of the oil consumed by the U.S. comes from the Persian Gulf, U.S. military protection of that region is even more irrational than nineteenth century European imperialism. American taxpayers would enjoy significant savings if the U.S. were to rely exclusively on markets to obtain oil, just as Europeans became better off as their governments reduced their use of armed forces and protectionist trade policies and relied more on free markets to obtain goods from other countries. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has taken the opposite approach in recent years and has extended its security umbrella over oil-producing regions in West Africa, Latin America, the Caspian Sea region, and Central Asia.
Previous 21 - 30 Next