I know I'm signing a death sentence for the man but..

The fact that he was an ex-diplomat to China has nothing to do about his qualifications to be become president.

The tax code should not be reformed - it should be abolished!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Abolish the Tax code, abolish the United States government.

Are you an anarchist or what the fuck?

Seriously.

Greater ties with China will more or less nullify Iran.


The Federal Government should be permitted to impose those taxes which have been CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED.

Neither the 16th "Amendment" nor withholding tax at the source have been.

What the fuck does "Greater ties with China will more or less nullify Iran" means?!?!?!?

.

Your opinion seems to be the only thing that ties constitutionality to the tax code.

Would you like to show us what you mean by Constitutional ratification of taxes?

Last I checked Congress has that right.
 
Abolish the Tax code, abolish the United States government.

Are you an anarchist or what the fuck?

Seriously.

Greater ties with China will more or less nullify Iran.


The Federal Government should be permitted to impose those taxes which have been CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED.

Neither the 16th "Amendment" nor withholding tax at the source have been.

What the fuck does "Greater ties with China will more or less nullify Iran" means?!?!?!?

.

Your opinion seems to be the only thing that ties constitutionality to the tax code.

You are right. The Founding Fathers intended to create yet another socialist banana republic.

Would you like to show us what you mean by Constitutional ratification of taxes?

That was the responsibility of the government schools.

Last I checked Congress has that right.


Yep.

Congress has the authority to ignore the Constitution when is inconvenient.
 
Abolish the Tax code, abolish the United States government.

Are you an anarchist or what the fuck?

Seriously.

Greater ties with China will more or less nullify Iran.

I could support better relations with China.

I lost interest in Huntsman after reading about his enthusiasm for insurance mandates. I do like his plans to simplify the tax code, but none of his positions reflect a dedication to principle. He's often described (like Gingrich) as a 'technocrat' which is red flag for me. It generally implies a 'whatever works' attitude that I can't really trust. 'Whatever works' begs the question - works for what or whom? People who hide behind such claims of pragmatism have an ideology, if not an agenda. They're just not telling us what it is.
 
Last edited:
Abolish the Tax code, abolish the United States government.

Are you an anarchist or what the fuck?

Seriously.

Greater ties with China will more or less nullify Iran.

I could support better relations with China.

I lost interest in Huntsman after reading about his enthusiasm for insurance mandates. I do like his plans to simplify the tax code, but none of his positions reflect a dedication to principle. He's often described (like Gingrich) as a 'technocrat' which is red flag for me. It general implies a 'whatever works' attitude that I can't really trust. 'Whatever works' begs the question - works for what or whom? People who hide behind such claims of pragmatism have an ideology, if not an agenda. They're just not telling us what it is.

He's the only candidate who wants better overseas relations out of all of them. This alone may be his most redeeming factor.

The rest have really disgusting foreign policies.
 
I lost interest in Huntsman after reading about his enthusiasm for insurance mandates. I do like his plans to simplify the tax code, but none of his positions reflect a dedication to principle. He's often described (like Gingrich) as a 'technocrat' which is red flag for me. It general implies a 'whatever works' attitude that I can't really trust. 'Whatever works' begs the question - works for what or whom? People who hide behind such claims of pragmatism have an ideology, if not an agenda. They're just not telling us what it is.
That one is a pragmatist doesn’t mean he’s a closet ideologue with a hidden agenda, that’s just paranoid nonsense.

Deliver us from ideologues and political dogma – we need more pragmatists in public life, not less.
 
The Federal Government should be permitted to impose those taxes which have been CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED.

Neither the 16th "Amendment" nor withholding tax at the source have been.

What the fuck does "Greater ties with China will more or less nullify Iran" means?!?!?!?

.

Your opinion seems to be the only thing that ties constitutionality to the tax code.

You are right. The Founding Fathers intended to create yet another socialist banana republic.

Would you like to show us what you mean by Constitutional ratification of taxes?

That was the responsibility of the government schools.

Last I checked Congress has that right.


Yep.

Congress has the authority to ignore the Constitution when is inconvenient.

Socialism didn't really exist in a set frame in the time of the founding Fathers.
 
Abolish the Tax code, abolish the United States government.

Are you an anarchist or what the fuck?

Seriously.

Greater ties with China will more or less nullify Iran.

I could support better relations with China.

I lost interest in Huntsman after reading about his enthusiasm for insurance mandates. I do like his plans to simplify the tax code, but none of his positions reflect a dedication to principle. He's often described (like Gingrich) as a 'technocrat' which is red flag for me. It general implies a 'whatever works' attitude that I can't really trust. 'Whatever works' begs the question - works for what or whom? People who hide behind such claims of pragmatism have an ideology, if not an agenda. They're just not telling us what it is.

He's the only candidate who wants better overseas relations out of all of them. This alone may be his most redeeming factor.

The rest have really disgusting foreign policies.


Interesting.

Ron Paul's policy is the same as the one advocated by the Founding Fathers:

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

.
 
Huntsman actually seems...dare I say it...


A reasonable person? Is it dangerous to vie for someone when you know absolutely it's only their 10 minutes in the lime-light before they get probably get obliterated?

Or will he actually be left standing after it?

Every candidate who has come to spontaneous popularity has been obliterated irrevocably. Huntsman seems the most sane of the GOP right now.

I agree. I've always thought Huntsman was the brightest bulb in the GOP box. However, I doubt he'll gain much traction.
 
Your opinion seems to be the only thing that ties constitutionality to the tax code.

You are right. The Founding Fathers intended to create yet another socialist banana republic.



That was the responsibility of the government schools.

Last I checked Congress has that right.


Yep.

Congress has the authority to ignore the Constitution when is inconvenient.

Socialism didn't really exist in a set frame in the time of the founding Fathers.


Really?

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865971285/lewrockwell/"]read the "CATO Letters"[/ame]

51vAcENE9kL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

.
 
You are right. The Founding Fathers intended to create yet another socialist banana republic.



That was the responsibility of the government schools.




Yep.

Congress has the authority to ignore the Constitution when is inconvenient.

Socialism didn't really exist in a set frame in the time of the founding Fathers.


Really?

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865971285/lewrockwell/"]read the "CATO Letters"[/ame]

51vAcENE9kL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

.

Yea? How many countries implemented it in their life-time?
 
Last edited:
Socialism didn't really exist in a set frame in the time of the founding Fathers.


Really?

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865971285/lewrockwell/"]read the "CATO Letters"[/ame]

51vAcENE9kL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

.

Yea? How many countries implemented it in their life-time?

1847 is the earliest known instance with the cooperative movement.


What the fuck do you think was the reason the Founding Fathers decided to create a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC instead another "democracy"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.
 
I lost interest in Huntsman after reading about his enthusiasm for insurance mandates. I do like his plans to simplify the tax code, but none of his positions reflect a dedication to principle. He's often described (like Gingrich) as a 'technocrat' which is red flag for me. It general implies a 'whatever works' attitude that I can't really trust. 'Whatever works' begs the question - works for what or whom? People who hide behind such claims of pragmatism have an ideology, if not an agenda. They're just not telling us what it is.
That one is a pragmatist doesn’t mean he’s a closet ideologue with a hidden agenda, that’s just paranoid nonsense.

Deliver us from ideologues and political dogma – we need more pragmatists in public life, not less.

Sigh... as you usual, you misconstrue my meaning. I'm not saying anything paranoid - just pointing out that everyone has an ideology, whether they choose to declare it explicitly or not. I want to know as much about a candidate's philosophy of government as possible. Candidates who pride themselves on NOT having an ideology are just refusing to define it.

Pragmatism is merely a statement of how we go about achieving our goals. It says nothing at all about what kinds of goals we'll aim for. An ideology can give us a handle on how a leader will govern when they (inevitably) face issues that weren't discussed in their campaign. I want to know where a candidate wants to take us. I want to know what they consider to be the purpose of government. Naked claims of pragmatism or being "above" ideology don't mean much at all, and certainly don't tell me anything about what kind of leader a candidate will be.
 
Last edited:
Yea? How many countries implemented it in their life-time?

1847 is the earliest known instance with the cooperative movement.


What the fuck do you think was the reason the Founding Fathers decided to create a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC instead another "democracy"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

The Constitution was created based on the ideals of the enlightenment.

The Enlightenment stressed the power of human reason to discern truth. Generally, it was dedicated to natural law and natural rights.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

.
 
he's a conservative, that's all you need to know about him.
Obama, YEAHHHHH!

No, I'd need to know a good deal more than that. Romney claims to be a conservative as well - but what he's selling as conservatism, I ain't buyin'. Huntsman doesn't seem much different from Romney to me.

dblack....if he doesn't have a D after his name....you won't vote for him, be honest.

You don't know him.
 
Abolish the Tax code, abolish the United States government.

Are you an anarchist or what the fuck?

Seriously.

Greater ties with China will more or less nullify Iran.

I could support better relations with China.

I lost interest in Huntsman after reading about his enthusiasm for insurance mandates. I do like his plans to simplify the tax code, but none of his positions reflect a dedication to principle. He's often described (like Gingrich) as a 'technocrat' which is red flag for me. It generally implies a 'whatever works' attitude that I can't really trust. 'Whatever works' begs the question - works for what or whom? People who hide behind such claims of pragmatism have an ideology, if not an agenda. They're just not telling us what it is.

"twice divorced philandering man-child," yes.

"Technocrat"? No.
 
Huntsman actually seems...dare I say it...


A reasonable person? Is it dangerous to vie for someone when you know absolutely it's only their 10 minutes in the lime-light before they get probably get obliterated?

Or will he actually be left standing after it?

Every candidate who has come to spontaneous popularity has been obliterated irrevocably. Huntsman seems the most sane of the GOP right now.

I agree. I've always thought Huntsman was the brightest bulb in the GOP box. However, I doubt he'll gain much traction.

Let's hope not.

I want them to run the dimmest bulb they've got.
 
Huntsman actually seems...dare I say it...


A reasonable person? Is it dangerous to vie for someone when you know absolutely it's only their 10 minutes in the lime-light before they get probably get obliterated?

Or will he actually be left standing after it?

Every candidate who has come to spontaneous popularity has been obliterated irrevocably. Huntsman seems the most sane of the GOP right now.

I agree. I've always thought Huntsman was the brightest bulb in the GOP box. However, I doubt he'll gain much traction.

Let's hope not.

I want them to run the dimmest bulb they've got.

We've got the only GOP candidate here who actually realizes that evolution isn't just some hypothesis.

That's got to be a fucking first or something.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top