What's new
By:

Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

Surely said:
I'm not much of a Huntsman fan either. He reminds me of Greg Miller, born into the right family. I wonder what either one of them would have become without daddy's money.
Click to expand...

Well, there are plenty of people out there with daddy's money that don't amount to ****. My neighbor in Clearfield was a great example. Dad worth 1/4 of a billion, living off his trust funds, 40 years old, smoked pot all day, had no job, blew money left and right. So you gotta at least give some credit that they worked hard enough to be in the positions they are. It takes more than money to become an ambassador, and it takes more than being in the right family to be successful running a business.
 
franklin said:
Great point. I might not act like it but I view politics as a side show. My boss calls it WWF and thinks they should bring in Vince McMahon to make it more entertaining.

It's a shame folks like Gingrich have to play the game to appease radicals rather than us supporting him using his intelligence to make the best choices he can. I can support an honest mistake he may make. It's the mistakes with an underlying agenda that bug all of us, I think, and they tend to be much more detrimental than mistakes formed out of a genuine care for the people and country.
Click to expand...

Well said. Repped.

It is so easy to get caught up in making mistakes look like intentional evil. It happens from left to right and vice versa all the time. Any honest mistake is labeled as a heinous evil crime against humanity. No one actually makes mistakes, they viciously and with malice aforethought try to perpetrate evil on the world. One the one hand, it gets old, on the other it shows the gross stupidity of our political leaders and how stupid they think we all are. And it also exposes the stupidity among the masses that cannot tell the difference.
 
franklin said:
It's a shame folks like Gingrich have to play the game to appease radicals rather than us supporting him using his intelligence to make the best choices he can.
Click to expand...

I would argue that Newt has already become a victim of the radicals. As has Cain, Bachman, Perry and soon to be Santorum. Paul is next. People so not want to have to vote for Romney that are pushing every other candidate until they trip up and they have to move onto the next.
 
TheSilencer1313 said:
Romney offers no change from the current administration.
Mitt Romney basically wrote Obamacare from his own plan in New Hampshire.
He has been a career flip-flopper on everything from abortion to foreign policy.
The only real change comes from Ron Paul, who will stick to constitutional restraints and get the government out of your life.
Click to expand...

There goes your credibility.
 
One Brow said:
Santorum is Catholic.
Click to expand...

I know, it was a joke. He acts and looks like the stereotypical Mormon adult leader. I don't actually think Santorum is "cooler" than the 2 Mormons either. Romney was my guy in '08 and still looks to be the 2nd best candidate outside of Ronnie.
 
Don't you people realize that if any of these candidates get elected except for Ron Paul, that nothing will change?
Continued devaluation of the dollar.....
Continued expansion of our empire....
Continued Wars....
Continued IRS.....
Continued spending....
Continued bailouts....
 
TheSilencer1313 said:
Don't you people realize that if any of these candidates get elected except for Ron Paul, that nothing will change?
Continued devaluation of the dollar.....
Continued expansion of our empire....
Continued Wars....
Continued IRS.....
Continued spending....
Continued bailouts....
Click to expand...

Ron Paul kills his own chances with his foreign policy. I could actually see him running 3rd party and getting Obama re-elected. Dr. Paul is an intelligent man, but I don't think anyone can claim he is eloquent in the debates or in his own speeches. The election for the POTUS has turned into a popularity contest. Hate to say it, but it is true.
 
How can expanding our empire be a bad thing? I mean we have already annexed all of Europe as the 51st thru 55th states. we rule all of the middle east, and soon we will set up our own governor in Korea. Once we own the world the dollar will be what we say it is. Go empire!!1!
 
TheSilencer1313 said:
Don't you people realize that if any of these candidates get elected except for Ron Paul, that nothing will change?
Continued devaluation of the dollar.....
Continued expansion of our empire....
Continued Wars....
Continued IRS.....
Continued spending....
Continued bailouts....
Click to expand...

Voting for "change" is what brought us Obama. Voting to just change this is stupid. I like some of Pauls domestic ideas. However as stated many times already his foreign policy is just insane.
 
Ron Paul has some fantastic ideas. He also has some absolutely, freaking crazy ideas. Remember when Clinton beat Bush? Why did Clinton beat Bush? Ross Perot. Don't put Obama back in the White House because you wasted your vote on Ron Paul.

You bang on me for saying that, but I live in reality. Reality is this: At this moment, a third party nominee can do nothing but take votes away from a Republican and put Obama back in office. A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.

I relate to a lot of what libertarians preach, but they need to build steam locally first. Win state's. Work your way up to Congress. Then go for the White House. It is a lot like the tea party. They are great for local elections, but are making themselves look silly in the presidential races. Sarah Palin. Pathetic. Then this year they have the flavor of the week. Anything to try to beat Romney, but their candidates are all very, very flawed. That's why they can only hang with Romney for a week or two before the Tea Party People "flip-flop" on the candidate and jump to another (Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and now Santorum). It's sad really. The tea party needs to stick with the smaller politics, and slowly work themselves up to the White House. Wait until they have LEGIT presidential candidates. Until then, let the big boys play big boy politics.
 
TheSilencer1313 said:
Are you claiming that Romney isn't a career flip-flopper?
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know when flip-flopping turns into a well reasoned change in positions and vice-versa? Or once you make a stand it can never change? I'm not sure I want a politician in office that can't be reasoned with or one that will make a hard core stand against all reason for fear of being labeled a flip-flopper.

By the way, the whole flip-flop moniker came about when John Kerry literally said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Prior to Kerry it really wasn't part of the political lexicon. Now if you make any change at all you get slapped with the label.
 
green said:
Ron Paul has some fantastic ideas. He also has some absolutely, freaking crazy ideas. Remember when Clinton beat Bush? Why did Clinton beat Bush? Ross Perot. Don't put Obama back in the White House because you wasted your vote on Ron Paul.

You bang on me for saying that, but I live in reality. Reality is this: At this moment, a third party nominee can do nothing but take votes away from a Republican and put Obama back in office. A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.

I relate to a lot of what libertarians preach, but they need to build steam locally first. Win state's. Work your way up to Congress. Then go for the White House. It is a lot like the tea party. They are great for local elections, but are making themselves look silly in the presidential races. Sarah Palin. Pathetic. Then this year they have the flavor of the week. Anything to try to beat Romney, but their candidates are all very, very flawed. That's why they can only hang with Romney for a week or two before the Tea Party People "flip-flop" on the candidate and jump to another (Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and now Santorum). It's sad really. The tea party needs to stick with the smaller politics, and slowly work themselves up to the White House. Wait until they have LEGIT presidential candidates. Until then, let the big boys play big boy politics.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If Ron Paul runs third party, I really do believe that Obama wins re-election.
 
Scat said:
I'm curious to know when flip-flopping turns into a well reasoned change in positions and vice-versa? Or once you make a stand it can never change? I'm not sure I want a politician in office that can't be reasoned with or one that will make a hard core stand against all reason for fear of being labeled a flip-flopper.

By the way, the whole flip-flop moniker came about when John Kerry literally said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Prior to Kerry it really wasn't part of the political lexicon.
Click to expand...

Also, it is funny that tea party people call Romney a flip flopper, when they flip on their candidates faster than rats jumping off a sinking ship. Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and now Santorum. It's sad. Every two weeks, someone pulls in close to Romney, we find out that person is a doufus, and the tea party flips and flops (very fish out of water like) to another candidate who jumps up in the polls close to Romney. The sad thing is, they don't realize their hypocrisy.
 
green said:
Also, it is funny that tea party people call Romney a flip flopper, when they flip on their candidates faster than rats jumping off a sinking ship. Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and now Santorum. It's sad. Every two weeks, someone pulls in close to Romney, we find out that person is a doufus, and the tea party flips and flops (very fish out of water like) to another candidate who jumps up in the polls close to Romney. The sad thing is, they don't realize their hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Any Tea Partier who supports Santorum should have their head checked. We are talking about a guy who is known for supporting earmarks both in his actions and in his public statements. If the Tea Party wanted to make political headway, then they would sit out this election because there is no candidate that is in line enough with their beliefs. They won't of course.
 
Last edited:
Scat said:
I'm curious to know when flip-flopping turns into a well reasoned change in positions and vice-versa? Or once you make a stand it can never change? I'm not sure I want a politician in office that can't be reasoned with or one that will make a hard core stand against all reason for fear of being labeled a flip-flopper.

By the way, the whole flip-flop moniker came about when John Kerry literally said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Prior to Kerry it really wasn't part of the political lexicon. Now if you make any change at all you get slapped with the label.
Click to expand...

Stop being reasonable. This is a political discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top