Is Medina finished?

[Sam Spade]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SxWWVfIlYI

This is a more complete version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQuTEF9ba2s

The curious thing is I had earlier got a recorded phone call from "Friends of Kay" that had a sound-bit snippet from Beck's show where he was knocking Perry.

Is Kay not running the worst campaign ever?

[Sam Spade]

First off, the American Revolution was indeed fought primarily over "No taxation without representation," (basically, if we're taxed we should have some say in our decision making process) though there were certainly other causes.

Which means that, in truth, no one wanted to pay taxes - this was common in the South especially, up until the Civil War.  The "representation" part was an "out" of sorts.

[Sam Spade]

I should also add that that interview indicates one of two things:

1) Medina is likely on the stupid side of things and doesn't know what she's talking about
2) She's a crazy truther

I'd vote #1, especially considering how vehement of a denial her campaign issued of the trutherism charges in its press releases following the interview.  If she was smart, and a passionate believer in 9/11 conspiracy theories, she'd have either not said what she believes or said what she believes and stuck by it.  The fact that her campaign commented about how she was unprepared for the question but that she firmly believes the government had nothing to do with 9/11 makes me think that that is closest to the truth.  While on air, she might have been trying to think about what her nutcase supporters believe or something instead of her own beliefs or whatevsky, I'm really not sure.  The woman is clearly retarded, still struggling to find her public presence and not sure what she is doing along the way.

Dude, she's a dyed-in-the-wool Ron Paulite.  Of course she believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories.  What I can't believe is that she was stupid enough to let the cat even partially out of the bag on the air.

Of course, maybe this stops Rand Paul from saying something similar in the future - I think he's smarter anyways.

[perdedor]

Well, I was mostly right. She was in the spotlight for about a week and imploded. 14% is tops for her in the primary.

[Deldem]

First off, the American Revolution was indeed fought primarily over "No taxation without representation," (basically, if we're taxed we should have some say in our decision making process) though there were certainly other causes.

Which means that, in truth, no one wanted to pay taxes - this was common in the South especially, up until the Civil War.  The "representation" part was an "out" of sorts.

Still, my main point was that there was some sort of justification for the American Revolution. There were legitimate concerns beyond taxation being dealt with. To sum it up, the Tea Party is nothing like the American Revolution; if anything, it's closer to the Civil War.

[Conservative frontier]

Medina is a moron.

My preference now :

1) Perry
2) Hutchison
3) Potato
4) A dead cat
5) Medina

[Хahar 🤔]

"I've got to take issue with you saying that the Governor is strong on states' rights; he has said we're not going to nullify, we're not going to interpose. He hasn't done anything to stop the federal government as it steps time and time again outside the Constitution. He's been in office for nine years and even in the first debate, when he was specifically asked whether or not he would stand to stop health care, he declined to do that. We're looking to see what's going to happen; all of America knows there's no Constitutional basis for nationalizing health care; he's singing a song for the campaign, and I think most of Texas sees that."

My God.

[Badger]

I hope both Medina and Perry lose.  Secessionists deserve no place in our government.

Ah, I presume you would have been a British loyalist back in 1776.

Those damn secessionists like Jefferson and Washington deserved to lose.

My God, you are a moron.

I know I've won for sure when my opponents resort to childish name-calling.

Sweetie, the revolution happened because of lack of representation, not because of taxes. The current collective teabagger hissyfit has nothing on them.

Ah, resorting to condescension and non sequuntur now.

Checkmate.

I don't think you can claim victory when you have dramatically misrepresented the American Revolution for your own purposes.

First off, the American Revolution was indeed fought primarily over "No taxation without representation," (basically, if we're taxed we should have some say in our decision making process) though there were certainly other causes. This was not secession, I would argue, since colonies were not legally deemed equal to the people living in the British Isles, and therefore the government was illegitimate within the colonies, since they had no say whatsoever in many of the decisions of how to run the colonies.

Now, let's look at the Civil War, when true secession actually took place. This was fought so that Southerners could whip and own other human beings, and so the wealthy plantation owners could make more money. They also argued for the ability to nullify federal laws, despite the Constitution clearly giving Congress the right to make laws for our entire nation.

Now, for the Tea Party movement. The goal of this movement driven by upper middle class and the wealthy is to lower their taxes, since they think the government sucks. They occasionally advocate secession to meet this end. Basically, they spout off this oddly Randian ideology that is very similar to laissez-faire capitalism, and don't really care about the less well off. They merely care about their bottom line, and will go to great lengths to reduce what is probably one of the lowest tax rates for the wealthy since the dawn of the 20th Century.

Tell me, which of the first two things is the Tea Party movement actually like?

The correct answer would be the Civil War, which came about largely because the wealthy members of Southern society thought that paying people would hurt their bottom line. The Civil War, in which we also determined that nullification and secession were not legal under our Constitution. It's funny, considering that the Tea Party professes to want to go back to the Constitution, when they clearly do not accept the legal interpretation of it by the highest court in the land, which was clearly established by the said Constitution.

So, Libertas, if you are going to tell me that the Tea Party movement is anything like the American Revolution, please tell me how you are within American borders, yet do not have any sort of representation to the United States government. Please, enlighten me, I'm curious how you managed to go to this magical land of Narnia inside America where you are devoid of someone who could possibly hear your complaints and act on them, and that this isn't instead a case of someone who is whining about how the government isn't doing exactly what he wants it to do.

<BIG standing ovation>

Libertas, do you support succession from the USA?

[Lunar]

I should also add that that interview indicates one of two things:

1) Medina is likely on the stupid side of things and doesn't know what she's talking about
2) She's a crazy truther

I'd vote #1, especially considering how vehement of a denial her campaign issued of the trutherism charges in its press releases following the interview.  If she was smart, and a passionate believer in 9/11 conspiracy theories, she'd have either not said what she believes or said what she believes and stuck by it.  The fact that her campaign commented about how she was unprepared for the question but that she firmly believes the government had nothing to do with 9/11 makes me think that that is closest to the truth.  While on air, she might have been trying to think about what her nutcase supporters believe or something instead of her own beliefs or whatevsky, I'm really not sure.  The woman is clearly retarded, still struggling to find her public presence and not sure what she is doing along the way.

Dude, she's a dyed-in-the-wool Ron Paulite.  Of course she believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories.  What I can't believe is that she was stupid enough to let the cat even partially out of the bag on the air.

Of course, maybe this stops Rand Paul from saying something similar in the future - I think he's smarter anyways.

While saying she believes Muslim terrorists did do 9/11 and the government didn't know about it ahead of time, she brought up Obama's Birth Certificate and continued to waffle (unlike the statements her staff puts out).

Okay, okay, she's a truther, I'm wrong. 

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I hope both Medina and Perry lose.  Secessionists deserve no place in our government.

Ah, I presume you would have been a British loyalist back in 1776.

Those damn secessionists like Jefferson and Washington deserved to lose.

My God, you are a moron.

I know I've won for sure when my opponents resort to childish name-calling.

Sweetie, the revolution happened because of lack of representation, not because of taxes. The current collective teabagger hissyfit has nothing on them.

Ah, resorting to condescension and non sequuntur now.

Checkmate.

I don't think you can claim victory when you have dramatically misrepresented the American Revolution for your own purposes.

First off, the American Revolution was indeed fought primarily over "No taxation without representation," (basically, if we're taxed we should have some say in our decision making process) though there were certainly other causes. This was not secession, I would argue, since colonies were not legally deemed equal to the people living in the British Isles, and therefore the government was illegitimate within the colonies, since they had no say whatsoever in many of the decisions of how to run the colonies.

Now, let's look at the Civil War, when true secession actually took place. This was fought so that Southerners could whip and own other human beings, and so the wealthy plantation owners could make more money. They also argued for the ability to nullify federal laws, despite the Constitution clearly giving Congress the right to make laws for our entire nation.

Now, for the Tea Party movement. The goal of this movement driven by upper middle class and the wealthy is to lower their taxes, since they think the government sucks. They occasionally advocate secession to meet this end. Basically, they spout off this oddly Randian ideology that is very similar to laissez-faire capitalism, and don't really care about the less well off. They merely care about their bottom line, and will go to great lengths to reduce what is probably one of the lowest tax rates for the wealthy since the dawn of the 20th Century.

Tell me, which of the first two things is the Tea Party movement actually like?

The correct answer would be the Civil War, which came about largely because the wealthy members of Southern society thought that paying people would hurt their bottom line. The Civil War, in which we also determined that nullification and secession were not legal under our Constitution. It's funny, considering that the Tea Party professes to want to go back to the Constitution, when they clearly do not accept the legal interpretation of it by the highest court in the land, which was clearly established by the said Constitution.

So, Libertas, if you are going to tell me that the Tea Party movement is anything like the American Revolution, please tell me how you are within American borders, yet do not have any sort of representation to the United States government. Please, enlighten me, I'm curious how you managed to go to this magical land of Narnia inside America where you are devoid of someone who could possibly hear your complaints and act on them, and that this isn't instead a case of someone who is whining about how the government isn't doing exactly what he wants it to do.

<BIG standing ovation>

Libertas, do you support succession from the USA?

"Succession"? What will 'succeed' from the USA?

[Vepres]

It's this kind of stuff that gives libertarians bad reputations. No offense to her supporters on the forum, but the fact that truthers (and other conspiracy theorists) and paleocons masquerading as libertarians flock to the same candidate is unfortunate. I'm sure most libertarian-leaners support Hutchinson for her rationality and pragmatism (relatively).

[Sam Spade]

A minor comment about "libertarians":

Look, y'all are about to be given the best chance to have a major impact in American politics in a number of generations. 

Please don't be stupid enough to completely f-it up this time.  Because I suspect the consequences of that will suck horribly.

Btw, if you believe Hutchinson's a libertarian, then I know that y'all will f-it up.

[jimrtex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SxWWVfIlYI

This is a more complete version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQuTEF9ba2s

The curious thing is I had earlier got a recorded phone call from "Friends of Kay" that had a sound-bit snippet from Beck's show where he was knocking Perry.

Is Kay not running the worst campaign ever?

The problem is that the substance of her campaign is that she's a women, her g-g-g-g-g-father was at San Jacinto, and that she delivers the pork.  It limits you to running commercials with platitudes.  And while pork-barrel may be good for a legislator, it doesn't make for a good qualification as governor unless you are running as a populist spender.

[ScottM]

I definitely think she's finished, and I'm gald this came out now instead of later. If by some chance she had managed to ride the surge she was on into a run-off and then pulled the upset and this came out before the general election, that would have been bad.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's this kind of stuff that gives libertarians bad reputations. No offense to her supporters on the forum, but the fact that truthers (and other conspiracy theorists) and paleocons masquerading as libertarians flock to the same candidate is unfortunate. I'm sure most libertarian-leaners support Hutchinson for her rationality and pragmatism (relatively).

Uh, no. Hutchison is the worst of the three GOP candidates as far as libertarians are concerned.

[Mint]

Saw it coming.

[The Mikado]

her g-g-g-g-g-father was at San Jacinto

Did the last five generations of her family reproduce at 15 or something?  1836 isn't that many generations back for a 60+ year old.

[Deldem]

I hope both Medina and Perry lose.  Secessionists deserve no place in our government.

Ah, I presume you would have been a British loyalist back in 1776.

Those damn secessionists like Jefferson and Washington deserved to lose.

My God, you are a moron.

I know I've won for sure when my opponents resort to childish name-calling.

Sweetie, the revolution happened because of lack of representation, not because of taxes. The current collective teabagger hissyfit has nothing on them.

Ah, resorting to condescension and non sequuntur now.

Checkmate.

I don't think you can claim victory when you have dramatically misrepresented the American Revolution for your own purposes.

First off, the American Revolution was indeed fought primarily over "No taxation without representation," (basically, if we're taxed we should have some say in our decision making process) though there were certainly other causes. This was not secession, I would argue, since colonies were not legally deemed equal to the people living in the British Isles, and therefore the government was illegitimate within the colonies, since they had no say whatsoever in many of the decisions of how to run the colonies.

Now, let's look at the Civil War, when true secession actually took place. This was fought so that Southerners could whip and own other human beings, and so the wealthy plantation owners could make more money. They also argued for the ability to nullify federal laws, despite the Constitution clearly giving Congress the right to make laws for our entire nation.

Now, for the Tea Party movement. The goal of this movement driven by upper middle class and the wealthy is to lower their taxes, since they think the government sucks. They occasionally advocate secession to meet this end. Basically, they spout off this oddly Randian ideology that is very similar to laissez-faire capitalism, and don't really care about the less well off. They merely care about their bottom line, and will go to great lengths to reduce what is probably one of the lowest tax rates for the wealthy since the dawn of the 20th Century.

Tell me, which of the first two things is the Tea Party movement actually like?

The correct answer would be the Civil War, which came about largely because the wealthy members of Southern society thought that paying people would hurt their bottom line. The Civil War, in which we also determined that nullification and secession were not legal under our Constitution. It's funny, considering that the Tea Party professes to want to go back to the Constitution, when they clearly do not accept the legal interpretation of it by the highest court in the land, which was clearly established by the said Constitution.

So, Libertas, if you are going to tell me that the Tea Party movement is anything like the American Revolution, please tell me how you are within American borders, yet do not have any sort of representation to the United States government. Please, enlighten me, I'm curious how you managed to go to this magical land of Narnia inside America where you are devoid of someone who could possibly hear your complaints and act on them, and that this isn't instead a case of someone who is whining about how the government isn't doing exactly what he wants it to do.

<BIG standing ovation>

Libertas, do you support succession from the USA?

"Succession"? What will 'succeed' from the USA?

I like how you ignored the question by jumping on a grammatical error. And how you haven't responded to any of my comments.

I'll fix Badger's statement, just for you, since you seem to have a comical inability to answer questions that are not perfectly worded to your satisfaction:

Libertas, do you support secession from the USA?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why, of course I do. I think there was some talk of secession in Vermont a few years back.

[Deldem]

Why, of course I do. I think there was some talk of secession in Vermont a few years back.

Alright then, I'm glad you at least answered.

Now how in the hell do you think that is even remotely achievable? I don't think it was exactly a smashing success last time around...

Also, I'm curious as to what specifically calls for secession in this case.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why, of course I do. I think there was some talk of secession in Vermont a few years back.

Alright then, I'm glad you at least answered.

Now how in the hell do you think that is even remotely achievable? I don't think it was exactly a smashing success last time around...

Also, I'm curious as to what specifically calls for secession in this case.

Of course its not achievable now, with fedgov and its military still maintaining an iron fist.

But collapse is inevitable for the federal government.

[Deldem]

Why, of course I do. I think there was some talk of secession in Vermont a few years back.

Alright then, I'm glad you at least answered.

Now how in the hell do you think that is even remotely achievable? I don't think it was exactly a smashing success last time around...

Also, I'm curious as to what specifically calls for secession in this case.

Of course its not achievable now, with fedgov and its military still maintaining an iron fist.

But collapse is inevitable for the federal government.

Now what evidence do you have to suggest that it's going to collapse anytime soon? When I look about, most everybody I come in contact with still supports the current American government, though they may not agree with its direction. How will this event come to be?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why, of course I do. I think there was some talk of secession in Vermont a few years back.

Alright then, I'm glad you at least answered.

Now how in the hell do you think that is even remotely achievable? I don't think it was exactly a smashing success last time around...

Also, I'm curious as to what specifically calls for secession in this case.

Of course its not achievable now, with fedgov and its military still maintaining an iron fist.

But collapse is inevitable for the federal government.

Now what evidence do you have to suggest that it's going to collapse anytime soon? When I look about, most everybody I come in contact with still supports the current American government, though they may not agree with its direction. How will this event come to be?

Open your eyes, man. The current state is entirely unsustainable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

http://www.therightscoop.com/gerald-celente-us-economic-collapse-by-2012/

[Deldem]

Why, of course I do. I think there was some talk of secession in Vermont a few years back.

Alright then, I'm glad you at least answered.

Now how in the hell do you think that is even remotely achievable? I don't think it was exactly a smashing success last time around...

Also, I'm curious as to what specifically calls for secession in this case.

Of course its not achievable now, with fedgov and its military still maintaining an iron fist.

But collapse is inevitable for the federal government.

Now what evidence do you have to suggest that it's going to collapse anytime soon? When I look about, most everybody I come in contact with still supports the current American government, though they may not agree with its direction. How will this event come to be?

Open your eyes, man. The current state is entirely unsustainable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

http://www.therightscoop.com/gerald-celente-us-economic-collapse-by-2012/

So a crazed Russian professor talking to a propaganda paper and a guy talking on an Internet video are supposed to be convincing arguments? Hell, I'd place more stock in palm readers.

[jimrtex]

her g-g-g-g-g-father was at San Jacinto

Did the last five generations of her family reproduce at 15 or something?  1836 isn't that many generations back for a 60+ year old.

Exaggerated Her g-g-grandfather (4 generations) Charles Stanfield Taylor was a signer of the Declaration of Independence.  As it turns out that is 34.25 years per generation.  He was born in 1808 and she in 1943.  The linkage is entirely through the female line, except for Taylor.