We do not need another Bush or Clinton.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jeb Bush May Be One Bush Too Many for Rank-and-File Iowa G.O.P.
- Thread starter kyredneck
- Start date
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
What is the invert of a 'Yellow Dog Democrat'? A Hard Head Republican? Hard Shell Republican? Red Dog Republican? Whatever it is OR, it's you. Just as so many old timer Democrats refuse to see that their party has left them, it's no longer what they've imagined it to be, so it is with Hard Head Republicans like you.
Sad, but true.
[add]
....and for the umpteenth time, I don't even like corn likker...
I have heard that story before.
I confess to being a Yellow Dog Republican; I would vote for a yellow dog before I would vote democrat. I did vote democrat onct in 1960 for A Willis Robertson, daddy of the TV preacher or whatever, who was running unopposed for Senator in Va. I had just moved to SC which was heavily democrat at that time.
Though I have been doing penance every since I have "bare handed" changed SC from solid democrat to solid Republican. It was a tough fight but I won!
poncho
Well-Known Member
Jeb doesn't have to be a neocon. That's what he has advisers for.
“I am my own man, and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences,” former Florida governor Jeb Bush said in a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on Wednesday. Bush’s strategy, to distance himself from the foreign policy blunders of his brother, former president George W. Bush, was clear.
But before he delivered his remarks, Bush, currently the top contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nod, released a list of informal foreign policy advisers. And that list tells us that, while Jeb may be “his own man,” he is still a man of the Republican establishment. A Bush, in other words.
As The Washington Post noted, all but one of the 21 names Bush listed are alumni of the previous three Republican administrations. Thirteen of them served under George W. Bush; six under his father, George H.W. Bush; and five under Ronald Reagan. It’s hard to imagine any of them serving under a libertarian-oriented Rand Paul administration.
Read More At: http://www.newsweek.com/jeb-bush-taps-usual-suspects-advice-307809
Neocons are like gnats no matter how many times you brush them away they keep coming back.
Hillary will bring her own swarm of neocons along with her too.
Election 2016: Neocon vs Neocon.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bingo! Neither does Obama have to be a Marxist, that's what the cabal of Marxist Jews that came with him to Washington is for.
I would not vote for a third Bush to clean up the horse mess after a parade. Crispy Cream Christy is the horse mess. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's problem. The Republicans is nominating someone other than establishment RINO. There are better choices this year like Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Cruz isn't eligible to be POTUS.
(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.
Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.
Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
< snip >
CONCLUSION
Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582