Atticus Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Once again Tweedling proves that people in Texas have no redeeming value. and once again you prove that it is possible for one to speak out of one's ass Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Leo Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I'm curious why you think Obama is not ready? I relate corruption to experience in washington.I am Jimmy Carter gun-shy. His was the first presidential campaign in which I was able to vote. I was excited about his positions and prospects as president. When his term completed, I felt set-up. How could all that promise result in such dismal failure? I learned that positons, fresh attitude and enthusiasm do not foretell presidential potential. An ability to respond with swift strength to international and domestic eruptions is what marks a president. Positions and fresh attitude tend to get lost in the practicalities of running the world. Carter was not able to do this adequately. He had no "Washington" experience. I fear Obama would face similar challenges and, with no durable Washington experience, "react" similarly. I like Obama's positions, freshness and energy. I just don't think his moment has arrived . . . yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 No one here reckon that the GOP can win the White House again? I wasn't sure it could get any worse than Bush v. Kerry, but Hillary v. Obama v. Guiliani v. McCain v. all the rest is unbelievably bad.Well, you can thank McCain for that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blue and Green Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 A VAST improvement. We'll have a president who can actually speak the language. Imagine!Obama is not ready. He appears to be in way over his head.Like it or not, Hillary is our only real choice.Wow if that is true then I'm scared. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Saint Genevieve Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Once again Tweedling proves that people in Texas have no redeeming value. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Once again Tweedling proves that people in Texas* have no redeeming value. *Residents of Austin excluded. There. Fixed it for ya' St. G! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SlowBurn68 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Ok - Maybe not all people in Texas - In my lifetime I have never witnessed a more narow-minded peoples in my life. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big Perm Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I'm not voting for Hilary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big Perm Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 and I'm from Texas Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big Perm Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Paul is appealing because he's the only one who seems to live in the same reality as the rest of us in regards to the war and foreign policy in general. He's principled, which sets him apart from pretty much everyone else in the field, especially on the Republican side. But he's also the single most likely candidate out of all of them to move to have Roe v. Wade overturned if elected, and that's just one problem with him. I think that cryptique is right, in that a lot of his supporters don't really know what he stands for.I feel like I do know what he stands for, I understand the Roe. V Wade overturning, which I can't say I agree with, but that aside, what's the problem with him? I've heard him talk about issues and listened to his points, what am I missing? I'm asking sincerely, cause if I've missed something crucial I want to know. He's tore up every other republican candidate in the debates thus far, and part of his appeal is that he seems real and talks fairly bluntly. He still hasn;t won my vote completely, no one has, but I'd like to know why he turns people off? Again, I'm asking seriously, not saying as in confrontational, just asking for views. But all these candidates aside, it would just be nice to have a president that among other things, actually talked to the American people, and god forbid sometimes inspired us. Part of me daydreams for a leader to lead us, and no more will the best presidents of this country only show up in Hollywood movies. Over-simplified, yeah maybe, but we can dream right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Part of the problem is that we can't, as a nation, agree on which way we all want to be led, on issues like abortion, gays getting married, war, and stuff like that. I had hoped, in the days after 9/11, that some of the divisive social issues we have been spatting about would have been put aside, but to W.'s eternal shame, they just cranked up the dial on them more. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big Perm Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Yeah, I hear that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I feel like I do know what he stands for, I understand the Roe. V Wade overturning, which I can't say I agree with, but that aside, what's the problem with him? I've heard him talk about issues and listened to his points, what am I missing? I'm asking sincerely, cause if I've missed something crucial I want to know. He's tore up every other republican candidate in the debates thus far, and part of his appeal is that he seems real and talks fairly bluntly. He still hasn;t won my vote completely, no one has, but I'd like to know why he turns people off? Again, I'm asking seriously, not saying as in confrontational, just asking for views. But all these candidates aside, it would just be nice to have a president that among other things, actually talked to the American people, and god forbid sometimes inspired us. Part of me daydreams for a leader to lead us, and no more will the best presidents of this country only show up in Hollywood movies. Over-simplified, yeah maybe, but we can dream right? The main problem a lot of people have with him is that he's a hardcore libertarian. He wants to greatly reduce the size of the federal government. Sounds good to me, but a lot of people here don't like it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 My understanding is the federal budget mostly consists of debt service, entitlements and national defense. Which part is Ron Paul proposing to eliminate? And it had better not be Social Security - I've been paying into that shit for 20+ years and I had better get something out of it in another 20+ years, or somebody's gonna get they ass kicked. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Life was also good during Regan too I just noticed this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SlowBurn68 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 In the next four month you are all going to get an education on how poor poling data really is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 In the next four month you are all going to get an education on how poor poling data really is.Do tell. Want to make a prediction? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 My understanding is the federal budget mostly consists of debt service, entitlements and national defense. Which part is Ron Paul proposing to eliminate? And it had better not be Social Security - I've been paying into that shit for 20+ years and I had better get something out of it in another 20+ years, or somebody's gonna get they ass kicked. My guess is that he would get rid of entitlements and reduce defense budgets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Paul would most likely want to get rid of the funding of any institution which (the funding, not the institution necessarily) can not be justified via one of the strictly enumerated powers of congress. in other words he would attempt to un-do many years of the supreme court's wrangling of the interstate commerce clause... (this is just a guess, I haven't had time to read his platform, but it is fantastic to see someone speaking from his mind rather than from memorized agenda items during those debates) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 My guess is that he would get rid of entitlements and reduce defense budgets.Completely against the former (see above) and kind of for the latter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Me too. Except I'm completely for the former. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I have come to believe I will never see the Social Security I am giving away to the government. It is going out as soon as it comes in. I have begun preparing for retirement with no plans of receiving such "security". I think you're kidding yourself to do any different. But then again......I'm also from Texas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 My understanding is the federal budget mostly consists of debt service, entitlements and national defense. Which part is Ron Paul proposing to eliminate? And it had better not be Social Security - I've been paying into that shit for 20+ years and I had better get something out of it in another 20+ years, or somebody's gonna get they ass kicked. I have come to believe I will never see the Social Security I am giving away to the government. It is going out as soon as it comes in. I have begun preparing for retirement with no plans of receiving such "security". I think you're kidding yourself to do any different. But then again......I'm also from Texas. The representative from Texas is correct. One word Mr. Bjorn : 401K Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big Perm Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 well, I'm still not convinced RP is all that bad anyone heard or read The End of America by Naomi Wolfe? Just asking opinions if you have . . . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.