You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2011.

The Republican caucus/primary process has been a positive. The debates, advertisements, articles, blogs, talk shows, endorsements, etc. help the electorate get a good look at the candidates. The public knows what the candidates are and are not. The vetting process has allowed the eventual nominee to be him or herself.

Mitt Romney has been getting endorsements from establishment Republicans and Tea Party folks as well as favored GOP candidate status from the MSM and the Left. The GOP establishment endorses Mitt Romney for political purposes. They see him as the eventual nominee and want to be ahead of the curve. The latest example is Nikki Haley’s endorsement of Mitt. Now, Romney did originally endorse Haley for the South Carolina Governorship in 2010; however, Nikki Haley can in a future campaign call Mitt and ask, “Hey, remember when I endorsed you and helped you win South Carolina? Yeah, well, I need your help in my reelection campaign.” Politicians being political, who knew?

What’s disturbing about Romney is that for some reason the MSM and the Left seem to prefer Mitt over the rest of the GOP field. One possibility for their sanguinity is that the MSM and Democrats might be holding back a possible October Surprise to harm Romney. The nightmare scenario is a replay of what happened to Bush 43.  On the Thursday before the 2000 election it was revealed that George W Bush had the equivalent to a DUI in the 1970s. There was not enough time for the Bush campaign to do damage control and the polls dropping proved it. Bush had an election win without a plurality of the vote, which affected the races down ballot. This led to a small GOP majority in both Houses of Congress (On May 24, 2001, Republican Senator Jeffords switched parties to an Independent and caucused with the Democrats in the Senate). His administration was terribly affected by this until 9/11.

The vetting process this time around should minimize the possibility of a fatal bombshell; knock on wood. But I have a theory on why the Left wants Romney. Read the rest of this entry »


Mission Statement

TexasorBustedForum is a platform for giving new voices the confidence and inspiration to be heard in the arena of ideas. Believing in the maxim “silence is consent,” the most powerful thoughts often arise from the politically marginalized individual who adds his or her perspective on what is happening.

We all have our own strengths, weaknesses, skills, and acquired knowledge that constitute our citizenry’s accumulated education, life’s experiences, and resources.

TexasorBustedForum is rooted in empirical facts, verifiable information, and sharing skills, tools, and experiences for future activism. We do not exclude ideas nor suppress individual liberty.

What information is conveyed in the forum must be demonstrable, provable, or explainable in a fully considered context in order to be considered valid.

This forum is therefore not about conspiracies, cranks, racism, misogyny or bigotry in any form. All personal attacks on individuals are considered a waste of time and do not add substantively to this forum.

The goal is to sharpen the participants’ skills of rhetoric and political persuasion, to build and capitalize on each person’s unique talents, and build confidence in each person’s distinct voice.

The platforms that the TexasorBustedForum participants engage in are as follows: Ustream, Blog Talk Radio, chatrooms, Skype/phone calls into TB-TV, other programs, blogs, and other media.

Please spread the word about TexasorBustedForum to inform people of this unique and empowering opportunity. America will be a better country if citizens take part in the political battle for the soul of the republic.

Hey WordPress Texasorbusted people, I’m njlibertarian and I’m here to deliver some unfiltered content of the discussion variety.
See, I kind of have this problem where when I post things on Facebook, sometimes people disagree with me.
Being from New Jersey, I can’t let that stand.
Here’s what happens when I Fight On Teh Internetz.

This Example comes from yesterday, December 20th 2011.  I have changed the name of my fellow debater to cover my ass.
It all started when I posted this video & comment on my Facebook Wall:

NJL(That’s me!): Wow, I’m taking my charity dollars elsewhere. Seriously, what was the point of making this commercial?

GTNM(Guy that’s not me.): I suppose an angry right wing nut would turn this into something political… oh wait. Breitbart did. Just speaking about the commercial itself, not the organization, poor kids don’t get anything from “Santa” because there is no Santa and the parents aren’t lying to their kids about the concept of Santa because they don’t have the money to buy presents, hence: “Santa” doesn’t do poor countries. The only way for the poorest of the poor to receive some aid, something worthy like food and medicine not some goddamned worthless iPhone, is from a charitable organization or person. Real help comes from real people, not some cooked up lie by the religious and money-hungry stores. Anyone who can’t see the point to this commercial is… most likely a religious conservative (and I’m being kind). Yes. The commercial trashes on the concept of Santa, and I believe it’s also trashing on the big phony scam of all, organized religion and it’s so-called traditions of helping the poor yet they don’t. Cruel commercial? Perhaps. Reality? Truth hurts, eh? (none of the above views represent my view of the organization itself I don’t see anyone getting all angry and upset over Best Buy (consumerism at its finest) trashing on Santa as an incompetent boob with old, unwanted gifts. Are you going to take your money elsewhere? I think not.

NJL: You OBVIOUSLY don’t know me. I am no “religious conservative”, nor am I a “right wing nut”. I am an atheist libertarian and you know what? I am STILL rankled by this ad. It takes a beloved secular (yes, secular) character and makes him out to be a heartless fat-cat, a meme the left employs constantly, to try and guilt a viewer into donating money to one of the most bloated, nontransparent “charities” out there.
I don’t mind hearing about the plight of kids in Africa, I don’t mind being asked to donate to a cause, but when you tell me that “Santa” (i.e. American parents) only ever think about buying their kids presents, I get a little bit annoyed. Are they trying persuade me or are they trying to admonish me? Clearly they aren’t doing a great job of appealing to a wide audience so as to gain and distribute more aid, so what was the point the of making this commercial? Oh, and about those Best Buy ads? There is a difference between a joke and an attack, Best Buy is not” trashing Santa, they are showing mothers who have been successful in getting good gifts being silly. The UNICEF ad is an assault on the character and values of Santa and by extension, the values of the average American parent, there’s a huge difference there.

GTNM: Riiight cause Saint Nicholas had nothing to do with religion. Just because the figure has been commercialized to death, among Americans mostly, doesn’t take away the fact that is a religious icon. I don’t mean the figure itself, but the traditions and everything around it as well. I will agree that it is a very odd way to try to collect charity because they are employing a heavy dose of guilt and they strongly imply that ‘Santa’ is actually all of the people that can afford to and aren’t doing so. I don’t know if you realize it or not, but it is a Swedish commercial. I couldn’t begin to tell you what their politics are but I guarantee a lot of people are blaming the American left right now out of pure ignorance. I do not see the politics behind this, just some morons with a tacky commercial. Whether or not UNICEF had anything to do with it.. I don’t know either. The Best Buy ads may not be on the same level of strangeness but they are just as silly. Mothers putting down Santa for giving bad gifts are actually mothers putting themselves down because they are the Santas. It’s the same message really. “Santa isn’t going to do it”.

GTNM: BTW, I knew you were agnostic, at least as far as your wall states.

NJL: Guy that isn’t me, is the Santa in the ad a Swede? I don’t get that impression. Where does UNICEF collect the majority of its money? Is it America? I’d wager it is. If that’s the case, I don’t care where it originated from, the ad alienates me, it is condescending to me, it is targeted at me, and I don’t very much appreciate it. And by the way, by stating that “an angry right wing nut would turn this into something political…” turned this political far more than what’s editors did. Please explain to me how UNICEF DIDN’T “Smear Santa As ‘One Percenter”, I want to read it. That doesn’t say anything about the left, it doesn’t say anything about progressives, it says what happened. UNICEF tried to use the supposed opulence of giving gifts to your kids as a pejorative allegory towards the “rich” in an attempt to guilt them into giving more of that sweet, sweet 1% money. It backfired, not because of over-politicization of the ad, but merely due to the sharing and exposure of the ad.

So, that’s how my most recent  Fight On Teh Internetz went. Who came out  the winner?
Well, ME obviously, though I suppose I’m not particularly objective on that topic, so fight about it in the comments.
It’s what the Internet is for.

First of all, I never thought I would be supporting Newt Gingrich for the President of the United States. I think he is an ass, an arrogant man that has lots of baggage; baggage that includes sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi in an attempt to start to start a conversation on climate change. Newt endorsed Dede Scozzafava in NY-23 special election, the very pro-union, liberal Republican. Newt was cheating on his second wife during the Clinton-Lewinsky affair in the 1990s. Oh by the way, if Newt does win the Presidency, the First Lady will be Callista Gingrich, the person Newt had an affair with in the 1990s. Newt endorsed the individual mandate that Mitt Romney implemented in RomneyCare up in Massachusetts. Newt had ethics violations as Speaker of the House for making money on book deals that could be used for future campaigns (Ironically, Newt took out Democratic Speaker Jim Wright in 1988 for the same ethics violations). Newt made $1.6 million lobbying for Freddie Mac during the beginning/height of the housing crisis. Most of his colleagues still hate Newt from his years as Speaker from 1995-1999. His hubris was such that, in early 1995, Newt basically called out the President as being irrelevant. Well, after the Oklahoma City Bombing, President Clinton became relevant for the rest of his Administration.

I wanted to first tell you the reasons why Newt Gingrich should not be President. But the problem I have is that the rest of the field is even worse than Newt. Read the rest of this entry »


TexasorBusted’s Tweets