Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
TULedHead

The Next President of the USA will be?

Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

slapface.gif

Why is fresh criticism necessary?

Because it would indicate an awareness of more-recent and/or current

events rather than relying on stale, irrelevant claims from the past. :whistling:

In true Clintonista fashion, the original criticisms have never been addressed/overcome/disproved.

In fact, that's the same response most Clinton koolaid-ers reort to no matter how far back you go.

They never address the criticisms, they just ask "That's so tired and played-out, can't you find anything new?"

So answer the question.

She IS a fuggin' carpetbagger opportunist who rode the coattails of her husband's popularity to find a workable position from which to launch a future presidential run. She puts on more faces than Eleanor Rigby (again, in true Clintonista fashion) in order to be everything to everyone, whatever it takes to get that power.

It's a solid criticism, and it's never been countered.

So why do we need to find FRESH criticisms (we CAN, btw, it's quite simple - take your pick) when these are never explained?

Oh, wait - that IS how you counter them.

Demand more criticisms until hopefully, eventually, nothing else can be thrown out there and then you can say "SEE! Told ya! You got NUTTIN'!"

:rolleyes: backatcha.

The "carpetbagger" claim was a solid criticism when the Clintons moved to NY so Hillary.. who'd never lived there before and never had any ties there before.. could run for US Senate as a New Yorker rather than the Clintons returning to Arkansas and Hillary running for an Arkansas senator's seat.

Hillary overcame the carpetbagger label and won a NY senate seat in her first campaign there. She then went on to win re-election.. having garnered nearly 70% of the votes. New Yorkers have accepted her as one of their own; they've twice sent her to represent their state in the US senate. Clearly... CLEARLY.. the "carpetbagger" issue has been thoroughly dispensed with. ..at least among those with any inkling of political insight.

B)

Clearly you resent the fact that Hillary.. the wife of a former governor and very popular and successful POTUS.. is herself now running for the office of POTUS. I'm guessing that your resentment is rooted in your fear (and hatred) of the Clinton political machine. The fact of the matter is Hillary has as much right as anyone else to run for the office. Is she using the "Clinton political machine" to help her? Of course she is! She'd be foolish not to. She sure as shit helped build that political machine; so why wouldn't she use it? Does the fact that she and Bill spent many years building an effective political machine mean she lacks the individual qualifications and merits to run for office.. and succeed in office if elected? Of course not. But you resent her for it; I get that.

Does Hillary tailor her message to whomever she's trying to get to vote for her at a given time? Yeah, it seems to me she does do that, and it's one of the reasons I don't hold her as my preferred dem candidate. I also think she's too hooked into lobbyist money and is therefore subject to being influenced by special interest groups moreso than I'd like to see in the next POTUS. But I am confident that if she's elected she'd push a policy agenda that I would be able to support moreso than any agenda that would be pushed by any of the repub candidates.. including Ron Paul. Hillary's not perfect by any means, but she is fully qualified and imho she'd be (if nominated) a better choice for America's next POTUS than any of the repub candidates.

I don't begrudge you your hatred of the Clintons, but your personal dislike of them doesn't mean Hillary isn't qualified. The fact that you can only criticize her personally.. (with the stale and irrelevant claims that she's a "carpetbagger" and coattail rider) rather than criticizing her record as US senator, her policy proposals, or her vision for America is evidence that your opinion of her as a candidate runs no deeper than.. and is no more politically insightful than.. your personal dislike of her and her ex-POTUS husband.

Did I satisfactorily "answer the question"? B)

:beer:

:hippy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it would indicate an awareness of more-recent and/or current

events rather than relying on stale, irrelevant claims from the past. :whistling:

The "carpetbagger" claim was a solid criticism when the Clintons moved to NY so Hillary.. who'd never lived there before and never had any ties there before.. could run for US Senate as a New Yorker rather than the Clintons returning to Arkansas and Hillary running for an Arkansas senator's seat.

Hillary overcame the carpetbagger label and won a NY senate seat in her first campaign there. She then went on to win re-election.. having garnered nearly 70% of the votes. New Yorkers have accepted her as one of their own; they've twice sent her to represent their state in the US senate. Clearly... CLEARLY.. the "carpetbagger" issue has been thoroughly dispensed with. ..at least among those with any inkling of political insight.

B)

Clearly you resent the fact that Hillary.. the wife of a former governor and very popular and successful POTUS.. is herself now running for the office of POTUS. I'm guessing that your resentment is rooted in your fear (and hatred) of the Clinton political machine. The fact of the matter is Hillary has as much right as anyone else to run for the office. Is she using the "Clinton political machine" to help her? Of course she is! She'd be foolish not to. She sure as shit helped build that political machine; so why wouldn't she use it? Does the fact that she and Bill spent many years building an effective political machine mean she lacks the individual qualifications and merits to run for office.. and succeed in office if elected? Of course not. But you resent her for it; I get that.

Does Hillary tailor her message to whomever she's trying to get to vote for her at a given time? Yeah, it seems to me she does do that, and it's one of the reasons I don't hold her as my preferred dem candidate. I also think she's too hooked into lobbyist money and is therefore subject to being influenced by special interest groups moreso than I'd like to see in the next POTUS. But I am confident that if she's elected she'd push a policy agenda that I would be able to support moreso than any agenda that would be pushed by any of the repub candidates.. including Ron Paul. Hillary's not perfect by any means, but she is fully qualified and imho she'd be (if nominated) a better choice for America's next POTUS than any of the repub candidates.

I don't begrudge you your hatred of the Clintons, but your personal dislike of them doesn't mean Hillary isn't qualified. The fact that you can only criticize her personally.. (with the stale and irrelevant claims that she's a "carpetbagger" and coattail rider) rather than criticizing her record as US senator, her policy proposals, or her vision for America is evidence that your opinion of her as a candidate runs no deeper than.. and is no more politically insightful than.. your personal dislike of her and her ex-POTUS husband.

Did I satisfactorily "answer the question"? B)

:beer:

:hippy:

Why does the socratic method serve as an answer. She is a Carpet Bagger who represents the staus quo.. Her stance on health care was changed once the Managed Health Care Corps got into her pocket, look at her campaign Funds. Hillary will continue to allow the insurance companies to steal our premiums from us just as the Republican do. Where is her stance on Health Care Now. I(sorry that was Socratic of me)

Don't be fooled by a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Let's get rid of the complete gang of 535 and I wish that miserable Babs in the Ravens Hat would be the first to go.

Dick Dale for President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does the socratic method serve as an answer. She is a Carpet Bagger who represents the staus quo.. Her stance on health care was changed once the Managed Health Care Corps got into her pocket, look at her campaign Funds. Hillary will continue to allow the insurance companies to steal our premiums from us just as the Republican do. Where is her stance on Health Care Now. I(sorry that was Socratic of me)

Don't be fooled by a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Let's get rid of the complete gang of 535 and I wish that miserable Babs in the Ravens Hat would be the first to go.

Dick Dale for President.

Your point about Hillary's ties to big pharma is not without merit, Dawg,.. but that doesn't make her a carpetbagger in the political context of one who relocates to run for office in an area where he has no previous ties. The political carpetbagger issue was relevant when she first ran for NY senator.

[edited to add: ok, I guess I can't fault you and Typo and NightFlight too much for seeing

her as a carpetbagger in the "an unscrupulous opportunist" use of the word. :whistling: ]

Her ties to lobbyists.. and by extension to big pharma.. is one of the reasons that Hillary is not among my top choices for the dem nomination, as I mentioned previously. However, if Hillary does get the dem nomination (which I have to acknowledge she might), even with her shortcomings I think she'd be a better POTUS.. for America, for middle class Americans, and for the world at large.. than any of the repub candidates.

A Ron Paul vs Hillary Clinton general election would be kinda interesting, I guess. I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it did I'd vote for Hillary. I'd rather see Ron Paul (longshot that he is) going against one of the other dem candidates.. Edwards, Biden, Obama, Richardson, or Dodd. If Ron Paul gets the chance to run against any of these dem candidates, I think there'd actually be some meaningful debates leading up to the election. If Hillary gets the dem nomination, the repub general election campaign strategy will be nothing more than ABC (Anybody But Clinton). It seems to me that an ABC campaign is what many repubs are secretly hoping for as they see it as their best.. perhaps only.. chance to win the presidency. [..unless Kucinich is the dem candidate. I think they feel pretty confident they can beat Denny. ;) ]

B)

:hippy:

* carpetbagger [noun; derogatory]

- a political candidate who seeks election in an area where they have no local connections.

• historical (in the U.S.) a person from the northern states who went

to the South after the Civil War to profit from the Reconstruction.

• a person perceived as an unscrupulous opportunist.

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your point about Hillary's ties to big pharma is not without merit, Dawg, burt that doesnt make her a carpetbagger.* Her ties to lobbyists is one of the reasons that Hillary is not among my top choices for the dem nomination, as I mentioned previously. However, if Hillary does get the dem nomination (which I have to acknowledge she might), even with her shortcomings I think she'd be a better POTUS.. for America, for middle class Americans, and for the world at large.. than any of the repub candidates.

A Ron Paul vs Hillary Clinton general election would be kinda interesting, I guess. I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it did I'd vote for Hillary. I'd rather see Ron Paul (longshot that he is) going against one of the other dem candidates.. Edwards, Biden, Obama, Richardson, or Dodd. If Ron Paul gets the chance to run against any of these dem candidates, I think there'd actually be some meaningful debates leading up to the election. If Hillary gets the dem nomination, the repub general election campaign strategy will be nothing more than ABC (Anybody But Clinton). It seems to me that an ABC campaign is what many repubs are secretly hoping for as they see it as their best.. perhaps only.. chance to win the presidency. [..unless Kucinich is the dem candidate. I think they feel pretty confident they can beat Denny. ;) ]

B)

:hippy:

*

carpetbagger [noun; derogatory]

- a political candidate who seeks election in an area where they have no local connections.

Why do you insist (smack there I go again)

\

She clearly fits your definition. Thanks for proving the point. She had no local tie to NY before seeking election.

The Historical term refers to Northerners during the Reconstruction Period however the modern term is befitting of Candidates such as Kathleen Kennedy Townshend and Alan Keyes.

Hillary's relection does not render her devoid of her Carpertbagger status.

You can't win on this point. You may want to pick another issue to argue if you have to be her great defender. Do as the Polis do ignore it because the voting public has a short memory.

Edited by Black Dawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully RON PAUL 2008.

Edited by Bonham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you insist (smack there I go again)

\

She clearly fits your definition. Thanks for proving the point. She had no local tie to NY before seeking election.

The Historical term refers to Northerners during the Reconstruction Period however the modern term is befitting of Candidates such as Kathleen Kennedy Townshend and Alan Keyes.

Hillary's relection does not render her devoid of her Carpertbagger status.

You can't win on this point. You may want to pick another issue to argue if you have to be her great defender. Do as the Polis do ignore it because the voting public has a short memory.

I was initially taking the carpetbagger reference in the historical sense, as I've since noted in my previous post. In that context the carpetbagger issue was soundly resolved by New Yorkers. The term came about historically from the locals who resented the newcomer. With regard to Hillary, obviously the voters of New York didn't, and don't, resent her.. and that's despite the efforts of her opponents (past and current) to brand her with that derogatory label.

As far the "unscrupulous opportunist" definition of 'carpetbagger' goes,.. sure you can apply that term to her of you like. But the fact of the matter is you'd be hard pressed to find a politician who couldn't be called a "carpetbagger"; by trade they're all opportunists, some are merely more unscrupulous than others, thats all. :rolleyes: Referring to Hillary as a carpetbagger in that regard is nothing but a political cheap shot. ..not unlike you inferring a similarity between Hillary and Alan Keyes. :P:lol:

Fwiw.. I'm hardly Hillary's "great defender". She's low on my dem candidate totem pole and I've made no bones about the fact that I think she has her share of flaws. I will however defend her against ludicrous claims that she's somehow unqualified, inexperienced, or incapable of effectively serving as POTUS; and although I don't consider her the best dem candidate, I will continue to tout her as a better choice for POTUS than any of the repub candidates.

:beer:

:hippy:

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hermit, it is easy to see that you are liberal dem who will not open their eyes to true hypocracy. If you think that comparing Hillary to Keyes is a slight, You are certainly not worthy of debating. I will not waste my time with people who are blinded by party affilation. Good Luck and have fun trying to convince people of your worthless democratic puppets' fitness for office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1022bf01-da36-478a-b8e2-69075df29cca.widec.jpg

"How can I flip my flop?

let me count the ways.."

**Spoiler Alert**

The next U.S. President will be Mitt Romney. If I'm wrong I'll buy the house a round.

Make that 2 rounds for the house if Mitt doesn't win. This guy is the real deal [ Hermit: :hysterical: ] and his crossover appeal to the left side of the isle is undeniable, especially if the left is stuck with Hillary as their nominee.

You're buying? Good!.. cuz I'm gettin thirsty, boys! :thumbsup:

:D

Concord Monitor: Romney "Must Be Stopped"

By Alec MacGillis *Wash Post*

CONCORD, N.H. -- Delivering the journalistic equivalent of a giant lump of coal three days before Christmas, the Concord Monitor editorial board has leveled an extraordinary broadside against Mitt Romney, declaring in an editorial to be published in Sunday's paper that the former Massachusetts governor "must be stopped" in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination.

The Monitor has not yet endorsed in either party's primary. Instead, it issued an unusual anti-endorsement dripping with scorn under the headline "Romney should not be the next president."

--->

Romney should not be the next president

The Concord Monitor; December 22. 2007

[snip]

Romney's main business experience is as a management consultant, a field in which smart, fast-moving specialists often advise corporations on how to reinvent themselves. His memoir is called Turnaround - the story of his successful rescue of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City - but the most stunning turnaround he has engineered is his own political career.

If you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats. If you followed only his campaign for president, you'd swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core.

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he boasted that he would be a stronger advocate of gay rights than his opponent, Ted Kennedy. These days, he makes a point of his opposition to gay marriage and adoption.

There was a time that he said he wanted to make contraception more available - and a time that he vetoed a bill to sell it over-the-counter.

The old Romney assured voters he was pro-choice on abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he said in 1994, and he cited the tragedy of a relative's botched illegal abortion as the reason to keep abortions safe and legal. These days, he describes himself as pro-life.

There was a time that he supported stem-cell research and cited his own wife's multiple sclerosis in explaining his thinking; such research, he reasoned, could help families like his. These days, he largely opposes it. As a candidate for governor, Romney dismissed an anti-tax pledge as a gimmick. In this race, he was the first to sign.

People can change, and intransigence is not necessarily a virtue. But Romney has yet to explain this particular set of turnarounds in a way that convinces voters they are based on anything other than his own ambition. [carpetbagger! :P ]

In the 2008 campaign for president, there are numerous issues on which Romney has no record, and so voters must take him at his word. On these issues, those words are often chilling. While other candidates of both parties speak of restoring America's moral leadership in the world, Romney has said he'd like to "double" the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, where inmates have been held for years without formal charge or access to the courts. He dodges the issue of torture - unable to say, simply, that waterboarding is torture and America won't do it.

When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.

Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.

*source*

------

ouch.

Yes,.. that's Concord as in Concord, New Hampshire, the state holding the

first primary in the nation (Jan 8th), following the January 3rd Iowa caucuses.

I'm ready to belly up to the bar! :cheer:

B)

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hermit, it is easy to see that you are liberal dem who will not open their eyes to true hypocracy. If you think that comparing Hillary to Keyes is a slight, You are certainly not worthy of debating. I will not waste my time with people who are blinded by party affilation. Good Luck and have fun trying to convince people of your worthless democratic puppets' fitness for office.

If you think Hillary and Alan Keyes are of the same ilk,.. if you're resting your hopes on a complete turnover of Congress,.. if you're waiting for some third party knight in shining armor candidate to come riding to the rescue.. then afaic you're not worthy of debating, Dawg.

Fwiw,.. I do recognize the hypocrisy of some aspects of Hillary Clinton. That's why she's not my top pick among dems; nor my second, third, or fourth pick. Even so, I still believe that she'd be a far better POTUS than any of the repubs (including Ron Paul, who I like quite a bit). That's not based on blind partisanship, its based on a difference in core values, policies, and political agendas.

Fwiw II,.. if you're dismissing the dem candidates as all being "worthless puppets" who are unfit to serve as POTUS, you're either entirely cynical and jaded or maybe you're the blind partisan here. ..or perhaps both. :P

anyway..

cheers.

:beer:

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Ron Paul calls the Civil War a mistake.. calls Reagan a failure..

..and reiterates his plan to abolish the FBI, CIA, DOE, and IRS.

Paul's array of comments in his interview with Tim Russert today is a good example of why although I see him as a decent candidate, I also see him as being rather extremist with regard to his libertarian bent. That being said, I still consider him the best.. that is, the least bad.. of the repub candidates. [That's not saying a whole lot when being compared to the likes of Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, and McCain though. :P ]

---------------

December 23, 2007

On Meet the Press this morning, Paul called the American Civil War a mistake,

criticized Ronald Reagan as a "failure," and refused to rule out a third party run.

Paul repeated his claim that Abraham Lincoln should not have started the Civil War to get rid of slavery. "Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War," he said. "No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic," he told NBC's Tim Russert.

"Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world," Paul continued, responding to the question if America would still have slavery had there not been the Civil War. "The way I'm proposing that it should have been done is do it like the British Empire did -- you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?... I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."

Paul also criticized Reagan for not reducing the government to a "constitutional size." But Paul also is using Reagan's picture in his brochure. "He ran on a good program," Paul explained. "His idea was limited government ... and a strong national defense."

In 1987, Paul resigned from the Republican party. Now he's running as a Republican. "I represent what Republicanism used to be. I represent the group that wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, the part of the Republican Party that used to be non-interventionist overseas. That was the tradition, the Robert Taft wing of the party. There was a time when Republicans defended individual liberty and the constitution and decreased spending."

While Paul never voted for a bill with earmarks, he has included earmarks for his district in bills. "I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back," he explained. "But it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave the money in the Executive Branch and let them spend the money?"

"It's like taking a tax credit," he continued, on why he doesn't refuse the money. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."

Russert also asked Paul to explain his positions on abolishing agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and IRS. After listening to Paul list the reasons for abolishing the IRS, Russert asked the Republican presidential hopeful how much money would be lost without the IRS.

Paul replied that it would be "a lot" of lost revenue. Russert told him it would be "over a trillion dollars." Paul did not seem phased and said "the goal is to cut the spending."

"If you brought our troops home, you save hundreds of billions of dollars," Paul said, explaining how he would make up the lost revenue. "You can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman of the world."

Finally, Paul refused to rule out a third party run, saying he has "no intention of doing that." He previously ran for president in 1988 as the Libertarian Party's candidate, but is now running for the Republican nomination. "I can be pretty darn sure that I have no intention, no plans in doing that. And that's about 99.9% of a chance," he said. "I don't like people who are such absolutists -- 'I will not ever do this' or 'I will win' or 'I'm going to come in first.' I don't like those absolutists terms in politics."

*source*

t1home.paul.ap.jpg

*Ron Paul’s Flaws as Seen by One Die-Hard Supporter*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Paul calls the Civil War a mistake.. calls Reagan a failure..

..and reiterates his plan to abolish the FBI, CIA, DOE, and IRS.

<3 <3 <3

Paul repeated his claim that Abraham Lincoln should not have started the Civil War to get rid of slavery. "Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War," he said. "No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic," he told NBC's Tim Russert.

"Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world," Paul continued, responding to the question if America would still have slavery had there not been the Civil War. "The way I'm proposing that it should have been done is do it like the British Empire did -- you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?... I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."

I'm not so sure what's extreme about this position...in fact, I would say that antagonizing half of a country with unreasonable tariffs, sending millions of young men into the bloodiest war in our history over a voluntary secession, suspending habeas corpus, "scorching the earth", and immensely strengthening the governmental Leviathan is the extreme position to me!

yeah,.. pretty much every presidential historian has written

extensively about what a total douche Abraham Lincoln was.

:P

Yep! And here are a few to start with:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

Paul also criticized Reagan for not reducing the government to a "constitutional size." But Paul also is using Reagan's picture in his brochure. "He ran on a good program," Paul explained. "His idea was limited government ... and a strong national defense."
I would say this is just another example of how Dr. Paul transcends party politics and is willing to criticize those who stray from their original platforms. Reagan was a failure when you compare his rhetoric to his performance in office, and I'd be more disappointed if Dr. Paul wouldn't recognize this.

While Paul never voted for a bill with earmarks, he has included earmarks for his district in bills. "I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back," he explained. "But it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave the money in the Executive Branch and let them spend the money?"

"It's like taking a tax credit," he continued, on why he doesn't refuse the money. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."

I don't agree with Paul on this issue, but I understand why he earmarks. I also think he honestly believes its philosophically the best way to tackle overspending. But like he says, earmarking merely appropriates spending but does not change overall spending levels in the slightest. There are better ways of attacking government largesse than eliminating earmarks.

Russert also asked Paul to explain his positions on abolishing agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and IRS. After listening to Paul list the reasons for abolishing the IRS, Russert asked the Republican presidential hopeful how much money would be lost without the IRS.
What this article doesn't say is that Paul only wants to eliminate the overreaching abuses of the FBI and CIA (spying, foreign coups, etc), while allowing for law enforcement and intelligence gathering in a leaner, more efficient goverment.

Finally, Paul refused to rule out a third party run, saying he has "no intention of doing that." He previously ran for president in 1988 as the Libertarian Party's candidate, but is now running for the Republican nomination. "I can be pretty darn sure that I have no intention, no plans in doing that. And that's about 99.9% of a chance," he said. "I don't like people who are such absolutists -- 'I will not ever do this' or 'I will win' or 'I'm going to come in first.' I don't like those absolutists terms in politics."

dumbdumber_02.jpg

Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?

Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.

Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?

Mary: Not good.

Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.

[pause]

Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance...

:rolleyes:

and Hermit, we obviously have different definitions on what "entrapment" is... ;)

Edited by tinblimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people still supporting Ron Paul after it's been proven he has a racist background?

A 1992 political newsletter by former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, included portrayals of African-Americans as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about political issues, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday. Paul, a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who defeated Democratic-turned-Republican Rep. Greg Laughlin in the March primary, in November will face Democratic attorney Charles (Lefty) Morris, whose campaign is distributing Paul's writings.

Under the headline "Terrorist Update," Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and wrote, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." About blacks in Washington, D.C., Paul wrote, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Paul said Wednesday that his comments came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time," and that he opposes racism.

In later newsletters, Paul wrote that lobbying groups who seek special favors are evil, and that "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Late last night I watched the entire Meet The Press interview

with Tim Russert interviewing Ron Paul and I gotta say..

Ron Paul sounded like a kook. :wacko:

I'm all for moderate libertarianism,.. but he's over the top. :rolleyes:

*interview transcript and video clips*

I still think he's the best.. (least bad).. of the repub candidates, but thats only cuz

he's running against the likes of Rotten Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson.

Damned if John McCain aint actually starting to look better and better again.. for the repubs.

This republican field of candidates is the weakest I've ever seen.

.

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are people still supporting Ron Paul after it's been proven he has a racist background?

A 1992 political newsletter by former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, included portrayals of African-Americans as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about political issues, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday. Paul, a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who defeated Democratic-turned-Republican Rep. Greg Laughlin in the March primary, in November will face Democratic attorney Charles (Lefty) Morris, whose campaign is distributing Paul's writings.

Under the headline "Terrorist Update," Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and wrote, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." About blacks in Washington, D.C., Paul wrote, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Paul said Wednesday that his comments came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time," and that he opposes racism.

In later newsletters, Paul wrote that lobbying groups who seek special favors are evil, and that "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."

Well, as a white male who grew up in southern Prince George's County Maryland, just outside of Washington DC, and who was at least "semi-criminal" in those days, I have to say there is probably some merit to what Ron Paul said. Things are certainly much better now, than they were a few years ago.

You ask a cop around here who brings in the most drugs into the US of A, and he will tell you it's the CIA. The drug trade is what drives most of the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are people still supporting Ron Paul after it's been proven he has a racist background?

Did you bother doing any fact checking before you posted some idiotic smear article thats been refuted for years? That article was written by an employee of Ron's who was fired after the incident. If you've ever bothered to read Dr. Paul's actual literature, you'd realize his style and tone are completely opposite of this "racist article." He's also been asked about this several times during the campaign, and it goes to show that Russert didn't even bother bringing it up on MTP because it is such a baseless accusation.

Ron Paul sounded like a kook. :wacko:

I'm all for moderate libertarianism,.. but he's over the top.

what did he say that was kooky?

Edited by tinblimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

The same could be said about the white males on Capitol Hill, the only difference is that their crimes are far more serious, and they are far more likely to get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what did he say that was kooky?

I thought just about everything he said he took to kooky extremes.

He said he thinks the Civil War could've been avoided by the purchasing,

and subsequent freeing, of slaves. That pov is not only naively simplistic

in that it utterly fails to take into account the issue of Southern cessation..

imho it's kooky.

He wants to drastically reduce, if not outright abolish, the FBI and CIA.

imho that's kooky.

He wants to abolish the IRS and all federal taxes, and

yet has no realistic plan for replacing the lost revenue.

imho that's kooky.

He wants to bring home all US troops from

every US military base around the world.

imho that's kooky.

He thinks shutting down every US military base in foreign lands

will offset the loss in federal revenue from abolishing the IRS.

imho that's kooky.

He thinks we should not militarily assist our allies..

..even if they're attacked.

imho that's kooky.

He wants to abolish the Dept of Education and

several other very important federal agencies.

imho that's kooky.

He stands in opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

imho that's kooky.

He wants to eliminate federal entitlements.

imho that's kooky.

He wants unfettered free market capitalism/unfettered free trade.

imho that's kooky.

He puts earmarks in bills and then votes "no" on them.

imho that's kooky.

I like that Paul wants to end the war in Iraq, and I like that he'd work to restore civil liberties that have been undermined by the Bush administration, but I don't like his kooky idea of reducing the federal government to a mere skeleton crew. I appreciate moderate libertarianism, but Paul is an extremist when it comes to his libertarian bent.

Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee are on the wane; Thompson's a non-issue;

and Ron Paul's too extreme for mainstream conservatives (and liberals).

John McCain however.. is on the rise.

:whistling:

:hippy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Paul calls the Civil War a mistake.. calls Reagan a failure..

..and reiterates his plan to abolish the FBI, CIA, DOE, and IRS.

Thats a bit too extreme for my taste.

The FBI isn't useless, neither is the CIA. The IRS on the other hand...

Ron Paul seems to be past libertarianism and on his way to anarchism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and Hermit, we obviously have different definitions on what "entrapment" is... ;)

I'll concede that the possibility exists that the telecoms were "entrapped" by the US govt given that they were approached by the govt and were asked to engage in illegal activity that they would not have engaged in had they not been approached and encouraged by the govt.

However, I think the claim of entrapment is fundamentally bogus on at least two points:

  • * AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth could easily have refused to participate, like Qwest did. [all the telecoms have highly paid lawyers.. experts in FISA law.. giving them advise; Qwest's lawyers advised the company not to go along with Bush's illegal program. You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South's lawyers didn't also know that the program violated FISA law, and yet they agreed to participate in the illegal program anyway].

    * The govt did not ask the telecoms to engage in illegal activity with the intent to subsequently prosecute the telecoms for engaging in illegal activity. In other words, the Bush admin did not approach the telecoms with the the intent of setting them up for criminal prosecution; in fact, the Bush admin is actively trying to shield them from prosecution. The Bush admin is not treating the telecoms like criminals caught in a sting operation, but rather is treating them like accomplices and/or co-conspirators.

Even if the telecoms were entrapped (a claim I don't buy), why should they be granted immunity? Why not let them make their entrapment case in court? Through the court process the facts will emerge, the telecoms will be found guilty or innocent, and the those behind the govt's illegal domestic spying program will be exposed and then, perhaps, held accountable.

Why do you feel the telecoms need immunity if they're innocent of wrongdoing?

:whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Ron Paul rejects the theory of evolution.

"Its a theory. The theory of evolution, and I don't accept it.. as a theory".

~Ron Paul *Video clip*

slapface.gif

"the notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in

either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.”

~ Ron Paul

:whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...