About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

14 Replies to “Allen West at CPAC”

  1. “strong, decisive and non-pc ” True, only I think, his tax cuts won’t save the dollar’s strength in the long run, or the US’ status as a real superpower. But then, he’s only a western politician in this aspect, not really thinking in long terms and the aim is to keep the game running to the bitter end. This is the man, who imo should have been the 1st black president, it’s a shame that a figure like BHO made it.

  2. He is also waffling on several issues the TEA party consider important, I want to know more about him and his political philosophy before I support him.

  3. I sent him a lot of money for his campaign, but my enthusiasm for West is tempered by the disappointments in politicians I’ve suffered in the past. I’m watching him closely for signs of waffling. He’s already, last week, said that the terrorists have hijacked Islam. Could have been a slip. Let him serve for a while, then we’ll see …

  4. Yes I heard other similar remarks about how he embraces all faiths or some such noise. He is indeed waffling. The man to watch appears to be Newt Gingrich.

  5. Newt is good and probably the smartest person we have ever had run for President, I will vote for him in any time, the other person I think should be on the ticket is Sarah but like Newt she has had a lot of damage done to here by the left. We just don’t know enough about Alan West to vote him in, people jumped on the Obama band wagon without much thought and not enough data. Look what that brought us, the actions of the next President are too important for us to risk another person we don’t know much about. Newt, Sarah or Michelle are the top picks right now, someone better may enter the race later this year so don’t get locked into anyone person yet.

  6. I really used to think that West was the real deal, but he’s indeed already gone George W. Blair on mahoundianism.

    If the Republicans get another “islam-is-peace” nominee for 2012, America will still be trying to win a war against an enemy that it refuses to identify as such. And, well, if you don’t know who the hell you’re fighting against, you can’t defend yourself, you can’t anticipate your adversary’s moves, you don’t know who you should try to defeat.

    Would the allies have defeated the Axis in World War 2, or would the West have defeated the USSR during the Cold War, if they had believed in some baseless alleged wonders and peaceful leanings of the nazis and the communists, rather than making no mistake in identifying their enemies and doing what it took to weaken and defeat them?

  7. Proud_Kafir7908 during the Cold War we had a lot of people who were saying that the communist weren’t evil and weren’t trying to take over the world, they are now in control of the schools and are teaching that the US wasted the money we spend fighting the Cold War. If you will watch the speech by David Horowitz about what is happening now you will hear him talk about how the same people are telling the same lies, just about Islam instead of communism. We can win if we continue to fight, but we have to fight. Also we can’t let them define the debate and the meaning of words, if we do that we will end up losing. More on this later I have to go help a friend.

  8. While I agree with most of his statements, cutting capital gains and dividend taxes would merely allow the top 15% to pay less than their fair share. When Reaganomics attempted the same thing around 30 years ago, the average workers found out that there was no ‘trickle down’ of wealth to the factory floors or offices around the country. It stayed in large bank accounts and was re-directed to offshore investments and tax-free accounts.

    Like most of the rest of the world, the US found that the rich were getting richer and the poor were making up the slack and getting poorer.

    Just saying.

    May the West prevail, though.

  9. RRWest the top 25% the tax payers already pay 70 to 80% of the taxes, and yes there was a trickle down to the poor, the new jobs were created by the rich re-investing their savings, and the drop in prices. The socialist programs of increasing the wages of the factory workers simply raises prices kicking off a round of inflation and the poor and lower middle class end up in worse shape. They have bigger pay checks but the purchasing power of their money dropped. The reason the rich aren’t re-investing in new businesses and creating new jobs is that they are uncertain of the amount of money they will be able to keep. If they have to give it to the government they see no reason to earn more, which means fewer new jobs and high unemployment. This is basic macro economics, it use to be taught in grade schools and high schools, now you have a hard time finding a University that teaches it in more then one or two classes. Trickle down works and gives the lower income people a chance to find a better job or even start their own businesses. The socialist programs only create higher unemployment and a class of people who think they are entitled to part of what everyone is making from their jobs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.