[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I met Cruz recently at a cattle-call fund raising thing. He’s kind of a big guy, which surprised me. Really solid-looking back. I told him as much and asked him if he deadlifted.
He looked surprised and said “yes, I stop at 315, but do sets of 8.”
FWIW.[/quote]
This is a pretty cool piece of info
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Cruz is not a particularly goofy looking man. Even if he was, his oratory panache would make up for it.
[/quote]
I met Cruz recently at a cattle-call fund raising thing. He’s kind of a big guy, which surprised me. Really solid-looking back. I told him as much and asked him if he deadlifted.
He looked surprised and said “yes, I stop at 315, but do sets of 8.”
FWIW.[/quote]
Not a Cruz fan but that’s pretty cool. Maybe his addition to the White House would be a powerlifting gym for some Secret Service lifting competitions
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Cruz is not a particularly goofy looking man. Even if he was, his oratory panache would make up for it.
[/quote]
I met Cruz recently at a cattle-call fund raising thing. He’s kind of a big guy, which surprised me. Really solid-looking back. I told him as much and asked him if he deadlifted.
He looked surprised and said “yes, I stop at 315, but do sets of 8.”
FWIW.[/quote]
That’s kinda real awesome.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Cruz is not a particularly goofy looking man. Even if he was, his oratory panache would make up for it.
[/quote]
I met Cruz recently at a cattle-call fund raising thing. He’s kind of a big guy, which surprised me. Really solid-looking back. I told him as much and asked him if he deadlifted.
He looked surprised and said “yes, I stop at 315, but do sets of 8.”
FWIW.[/quote]
That’s kinda real awesome. [/quote]
Very.
I picture Barry being the Bonsu-ball type.
I would feel better about electing Cruz and/or Rubio to a second job if they actively participated on the first job they had been elected to do.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Cruz is not a particularly goofy looking man. Even if he was, his oratory panache would make up for it.
[/quote]
I met Cruz recently at a cattle-call fund raising thing. He’s kind of a big guy, which surprised me. Really solid-looking back. I told him as much and asked him if he deadlifted.
He looked surprised and said “yes, I stop at 315, but do sets of 8.”
FWIW.[/quote]
That’s kinda real awesome. [/quote]
No kidding. I’m not a Cruz voter but damn if that doesn’t make me like him a helluva lot more! That’s some serious work for a politician to put in. Badass.
“climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism”
and people support this lunatic
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
I would feel better about electing Cruz and/or Rubio to a second job if they actively participated on the first job they had been elected to do.
[/quote]
Your cited article quotes Senator McCain who criticizes Cruz. So let’s take a look at McCain’s voting attendance record the year he ran for president…are you sure you want to do this?..I dunno, it could be damning…oh well, let’s go ahead and do it!
“Both AriÃ?Âzona senÃ?ÂatÃ?Âors made the botÃ?Âtom 10 list. John McÃ?ÂCain, unsurprisingly, missed many votes while he was on the presidential campaign trail in 2008. ‘Most people understand that when running for president, you’re unfortunately going to miss votes,’ a McCain spokesman told National Journal. ‘Arizonans understand that, and overwhelmingly reelected him in 2010.’”
Aw shucks.
Another reason McCain was and is a loser. [/quote]
McCain certainly wouldn’t make my short list; however Cruz’s negligence isn’t limited to his Pres-Bid.
‘In his first two years in the Senate, Cruz attended just 17 of 50 public Armed Services Committee hearings…’
‘Cruzâ??s aides say he attended half of the Judiciary full-committee hearings held during the 113th Congress â?? 20 of 40…’
‘POLITICO review has found that his attendance problems date back to his first few months as a senator in 2013, when he skipped congressional hearings on immigration, the war in Afghanistan and across-the-board spending cuts.’
.
Trump’s plan will NOT be revenue-neutral. He is grossly miscalculating this incentive to bring home corporate cash oversees. His plan is similar to Bush’s, with better rates, and more military spending.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
.[/quote]
We are trying to exercise (cut taxes) rather than cut calories (quit spending).
Damn…greed is a ruthless taskmaster.
10% reduction in spending across the board and add 1%/year until we right this sinking boat.
Families in tight finances have done this since time began.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
.[/quote]
So… You mean status quo?
Okay.
At least they are all better than “free stuff” Bernie and Hills
Let’s also not forget that putting money back into the hands of those who earned, in other words stealing less money, will increase economic growth. Small business will be able to expand. Those who want to start a small business will now be able to afford to do so. Those who want to perhaps buy a new car or any number of things will have the money to do so. This all helps the economy greatly.
The idiotic left also attacked Ronald Reagan when he cut taxes dramatically in the 80’s, and what happened? The creation of millions of jobs and a huge economic recovery!
Any of the republican tax plans would be just fine. But don’t ask the eggheads in the liberal think tanks to agree. But, they’ve already proven they know nothing.
Since when does giving more money to the government do anything but increase the size and scope of the government. They’ve proven themselves horrible at paying down debt. But we can grow ourselves out of this mess by increasing the tax base etc.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Let’s also not forget that putting money back into the hands of those who earned, in other words stealing less money, will increase economic growth. Small business will be able to expand. Those who want to start a small business will now be able to afford to do so. Those who want to perhaps buy a new car or any number of things will have the money to do so. This all helps the economy greatly.
The idiotic left also attacked Ronald Reagan when he cut taxes dramatically in the 80’s, and what happened? The creation of millions of jobs and a huge economic recovery!
Any of the republican tax plans would be just fine. But don’t ask the eggheads in the liberal think tanks to agree. But, they’ve already proven they know nothing.
Since when does giving more money to the government do anything but increase the size and scope of the government. They’ve proven themselves horrible at paying down debt. But we can grow ourselves out of this mess by increasing the tax base etc.
[/quote]
Liberal think tanks? Tilting at windmills again ZEB? It’s incredible to see you, a non-economist, mischaracterize, dismiss, and irrefutably debunk Keynesian economics within the confines of a single post.
When you can’t grow the government though politics, don’t worry, you always have Keynesian economics. Plus, it makes you sound smart when discussing economics over race, art history, and rescuing animals at a liberal cocktail party.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
When you can’t grow the government though politics, don’t worry, you always have Keynesian economics. Plus, it makes you sound smart when discussing economics over race, art history, and rescuing animals at a liberal cocktail party. [/quote]
It has a proven track record of success. This thread is neither the time nor the place. I just find it amusing that someone who isn’t even a dilettante is throwing stones at doctored economists. I’m a middle of the road beer man and much prefer rendezvouses in bars. Race, art history, and animal welfare never come up.