Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Early Presidential Prospects

Scott853 Wrote: Jan 21, 2015 10:44 AM
"If you think back to the most politically successful Republican presidents of the 20th century -- Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge and Dwight D. Eisenhower -- they were all men who already had the experience of being responsible for results, whether as governors or as a military commander in the case of General Eisenhower. Those Republican presidents who self-destructed politically -- Hoover and Nixon, for example -- lacked that kind of background, however much they might have had other assets." Guess Dr. Sowell didn't think that Hoover, as head of the Committee for Relief in Belgium (during WWI), and later, as head of the American Relief Agency (after WWI), both of which were responsible for feeding millions of the war's victims, or as the multimillionaire investor/entrepeneur before WWI as being 'responsible for results.' Hard to imagine any one on this list other than Eisenhower that had more responsibility for results before his Presidency as Hoover did.
In response to:

Early Presidential Prospects

Scott853 Wrote: Jan 21, 2015 10:40 AM
If you think back to the most politically successful Republican presidents of the 20th century -- Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge and Dwight D. Eisenhower -- they were all men who already had the experience of being responsible for results, whether as governors or as a military commander in the case of General Eisenhower. Those Republican presidents who self-destructed politically -- Hoover and Nixon, for example -- lacked that kind of background, however much they might have had other assets. Guess Dr. Sowell doesn't consider Hoover's positions as head of Commission for Relief in Belgium (during WWII) or the American Relief Administration (after WWI), feeding millions of war victims, or his role as multimillionaire investor/entrepeneur as "responsible for results." Hard to imagine any other President EXCEPT Eisenhower who had more responsibility for results as Hoover did.
In response to:

The Problem With Obama's Tax Plan

Scott853 Wrote: Jan 20, 2015 10:14 PM
"Tax expenditures" Oh no! You fell for the liberals' trick! I NEVER thought I'd see the day when someone who should be a conservative, using the liberals' trick phrase like 'tax expenditures.' BTW, I am most definitely NOT wealthy, but needed the mortgage interest deduction to afford my house. MID isn't only for the wealthy.
It's also a FACT that much of that defense budget goes to defend and keep safe a bunch of social democrat countries, who can use the money they aren't spending on defense towards 'freebees' for their citizens. American citizens are paying for Europe's defense, not Europeans.
Sure explains a lot of the arrogant pi$$water garbage coming out of Democrats' mouths these days.
President Dope wants to tax practically the only thing that helps a family afford college for its young 'uns? Friggin' moron.
In response to:

The Three Amigos of GOP Defeat in 2016

Scott853 Wrote: Jan 18, 2015 8:17 PM
Romney can be the most conservative guy on the planet, but he lost my vote when he didn't "step on President Dope's throat" after he trounced him in the first debate. There were dozens of issues Romney could have and should have attacked our first Marxist President (who has revealed his true tyrant colors in the last 2 years with his use of illegal executive orders) during that Fall 2012 campaign. Because he didn't, he lost. I don't vote for losers, and Romney is too nice to do what it takes to win. Thumbs down on Romney (though by all measures, experience, knowledge, etc. he was more qualified to be President when he graduated at age 26 with an MBA and a law degree on the same day from Harvard, than President Dope is after 6 years of sitting in the big boy chair).
In response to:

The Three Amigos of GOP Defeat in 2016

Scott853 Wrote: Jan 18, 2015 8:09 PM
Trouble with your flashback to Reagan is that conservatives have held their noses and voted for winning moderate Republicans 3 times since Reagan; Bush 41, and Bush 43 twice.
There is no incentive for a rating agency to be wrong about the risk associated with securities Other than money. A ratings agency doesn't have to make every investment the highest grade to make money in a tit for tat--just boosting a credit rating one level would result in substantially more profit for the sellers, certainly enough for the sellers to increase their purchases of other S&P products. IMO,$1Billion doesn't begin to cover the losses associated with S&P's stunningly bad credit ratings, whether willful or by incompetence. Either way, the company should have been fined enough to drive them into bankruptcy, or have its heads indicted like Enron and Arthur Andersen's.
No doubt. And even if a restaurant didn't usually serve steaks, they'd be forced to BUY them just to provide them for free!
Sure, Obama is so clueless he could lose money running a whorehouse in a Navy port!
Previous 11 - 20 Next