Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hap on June 06, 2007, 03:09:21 PM
-
Why aren't the anti-Dems talking about the Repub debate?
-
Because it's a cluster****.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Why aren't the anti-Dems talking about the Repub debate?
because they don't want to admit that the ONLY GOP candidate that they can support who won't consider a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran is my man, Ron Paul.
That or they're actually FOR a preemptive nuclear strike... :O
-
nukes are so last century, when you can put a cruise missile through a window from thousands of miles away you don't need nukes.
-
A pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?
It is far better to say you would do it, and never need, to then to say you never would do it, and then need to. Its like this: If someone threatens me and I fear for my life, I will not wait for that person to attack me. I will drop them as soon and as best I can, and they will not be kicking around after the fact.
Iran should not be allowed to go nuclear.
PS: I tend not to pay attention to debates this early in the process. Too many heads talking at once. I typically start paying attention when they get down to the top 4-5 candidates.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Because it's a cluster****.
it certainly is. there is absolutely no one whom I care to cast my vote for.
-
Originally posted by storch
it certainly is. there is absolutely no one whom I care to cast my vote for.
RP didn't score any points with you with his "Rights belong to individuals, not groups" answer? I received a first-hand report from someone who was present that said the room exploded (figuratively, ofc...) when he said that. Even those who were there who supported the other candidates reacted favorably...
-
I want to like RP. he is the only republican that I might consider voting for. I am not so sure that his answers weren't merely calculated responses for the very point scoring you mention.
I'm not all together sure he could carry the nation.
-
People are warming up to the mormon. He is considered the big winner in the debates.
lazs
-
Originally posted by storch
it certainly is. there is absolutely no one whom I care to cast my vote for.
then you give the WH to the dems
I don't care who the reps pick, they get my vote over any dem running
the reason I do not care about the debates, is the fact the election is a year and a half away. anything could happen between now and then that would render the babble spoken today as irrelevant..
-
Originally posted by Eagler
then you give the WH to the dems
I don't care who the reps pick, they get my vote over any dem running
Fortunatley, there are many more dems than reps thinking this way for their party. Thanks to GWB, the reps will be trying to crawl out of the hole the chimp dug for them. The tone of the last debate shows that the rep contenders have gone from not really mentioning GWB in the last debate to openly slaming him in the latest one, must have been some sort of sudden realization that GWB's coattails are toxic.
the reason I do not care about the debates, is the fact the election is a year and a half away. anything could happen between now and then that would render the babble spoken today as irrelevant.. [/QUOTE]
On the contrary, getting out the policys and personalities of the contenders early gives the voters time to see the flipflops, bigots and religious zealots early on, it also gives time for these pols to change...um, refine their positions depending on how they do in the polls after the debate.
Now, don't let my blathering bother you guys on the right, although here in AH land you may be in the majority, out in the real world you guys are still among the 30%ers who still belive in GWB. The rest of us, the majority of the country that is, have awakened.
-
I would rather write in Mickey Mouse than vote for a mormon. No way Jose! No mormanos!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
then you give the WH to the dems
IMO, if the GOP voters don't select RP as their candidate they're giving the WH to the Dems. RP has a better chance to beat the Dem candidate than any of those neo-cons. Why? Because first of all there's the people like you who'll vote for whatever Rep candidate is running. That's a good chunk of votes, but not enough to beat Hillobama IMO. However, if RP is the GOP candidate in the general election, he'll get the libertarian vote and many other independent votes. He'll also suck some Dem votes away from Hillobama. (there IS such a thing as Dems who lean libertarian) The Libertarian Party will probably endorse RP and not even bother running their own candidate, if he wins the GOP primary. IMO, all that makes a recipe for a GOP win.
I don't care who the reps pick, they get my vote over any dem running
the reason I do not care about the debates, is the fact the election is a year and a half away. anything could happen between now and then that would render the babble spoken today as irrelevant..
these debates are more pertinant to the primaries than they are to the general election. What GOP candidate will be up against Obama/Hillary in '08? From the sound of it you don't care, you'll simply vote for whatever GOP candidate does make it to the general election. That's all well and good and there's plenty more like you, but I for one won't be voting for RudyMittCain. I'd rather throw my vote away on the Libertarian Party's candidate.
The primaries, by the way, start in approx 6 months.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
The rest of us, the majority of the country that is, have awakened.
(http://bilesnarksneer.typepad.com/bile_snark_sneer/images/nancy_pelosi.jpg) (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040819/040819_ted_kennedy_9p.vsmall.jpg)(http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg)
If that's "awakened", guess I'll stay in my coma LOL
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Fortunatley, there are many more dems than reps thinking this way for their party. Thanks to GWB, the reps will be trying to crawl out of the hole the chimp dug for them. The tone of the last debate shows that the rep contenders have gone from not really mentioning GWB in the last debate to openly slaming him in the latest one, must have been some sort of sudden realization that GWB's coattails are toxic.
I agree, GWBush is a flip-flop socialist ! , and He will sign this POS Amnesty Bill
into Law, as soon as possible, and then go on national TV and tell country "How good it is for the American People " ....
On the contrary, getting out the policys and personalities of the contenders early gives the voters time to see the flipflops, bigots and religious zealots early on, it also gives time for these pols to change...um, refine their positions depending on how they do in the polls after the debate.
I also agree with you here too ,
Here is a quick list of the flip-flop bastages that are hell bent on giving away our money/ social security trust fund and way of life .... and voted to do just that last night in the Senate ....
Subject: Senate voting
This is how they voted.
SHOCKING SENATE VOTES
"The following senators voted against making English the official language of America :
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Now, the following are the senators who voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. They are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was no voting representative.
Alaska : Stevens (R)
Arizona : McCain (R)
Arkansas : Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)
California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
Colorado : Salazar (D)
Connecticut : Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)
Delaware : Biden (D) Carper (D)
Florida : Martinez (R)
Hawaii : Akaka (D) Inouye (D)
Illinois : Durbin (D) Obama (D)
Indiana: Bayh (D) Lugar (R)
Iowa: Harkin (D)
Kansas: Brownback (R)
Louisiana: Landrieu (D)
Maryland: Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D) Kerry (D)
Montana: Baucus (D)
Nebraska: Hagel (R)
Nevada: Reid (D)
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)
New Mexico: Bingaman (D)
New York: Clinton (D) Schumer (D)
North Dakota : Dorgan (D)
Ohio : DeWine (R) Voinovich(R)
Oregon : Wyden (D)
Pennsylvania : Specter (R)
Rhode Island : Chafee (R) Reed (D)
South Carolina : Graham (R)
South Dakota : Johnson (D)
Vermont : Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)
Washington : Cantwell (D) Murray (D)
West Virginia : Rockefeller (D), by Not Voting
Wisconsin : Feingold (D) Kohl (D)
:mad:
Bob/CHECKERS
-
seems that you are still better off voting for any republican over any democrat.
With a billary or osamabama in the whitehouse right now.. we would have an "immigration bill" that would give a pass to any third world family willing to break into the country... they (the democrats) feel (right down party lines) that this bill is not leinient enough... that is unfair to illegals that are here and future illegals.
We would not be seeing even this compromise.. a much worse bill would already be signed.
The only reason this bill will not pass is because of republicans.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
that is unfair to illegals that are here and future illegals.
How dare you have such disrespect for these people by reffering to them as adjectives, and the adjective "illegal" at that. They're "irregular migrants," you horrible man you.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Now, don't let my blathering bother you guys on the right, although here in AH land you may be in the majority, out in the real world you guys are still among the 30%ers who still belive in GWB. The rest of us, the majority of the country that is, have awakened.
I see you are not a gun-owner. You're digging your own grave.
-
Yeah.. they are not illegals.. nothing is illegal.. fine with me.
drug dealers are simply undocumented pharmasists...
If I need to get somewhere I should be able to speed because I am simply an undocumented emergency vehicle.
A burglar or a thief is merely an undocumented politician.
lazs
-
If, by some freak chance, the race ends up being between Clinton and Huckabee, I'll hold my nose and vote....libertarian....or else abstain from voting altogether.
Flatbar....if the race should offer the choice between Clinton and Thompson you will find out very quickly how that 30% of Republicans will expand to an electoral majority. Many voters may have turned against Bush, but he won't be running in 2008. Faced with the choice of a socialist who espouses confiscatory taxes and government interference in every aspect of American life, including the family, or an old-style, Reaganesque Republican, the current polling numbers will change very quickly.
-
out in the real world you guys are still among the 30%ers who still belive in GWB.
====
pfffft......Keep fooling yourself and we will ALL be better for it.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
If, by some freak chance, the race ends up being between Clinton and Huckabee, I'll hold my nose and vote....libertarian....or else abstain from voting altogether.
yup, ditto...
Flatbar....if the race should offer the choice between Clinton and Thompson you will find out very quickly how that 30% of Republicans will expand to an electoral majority. Many voters may have turned against Bush, but he won't be running in 2008. Faced with the choice of a socialist who espouses confiscatory taxes and government interference in every aspect of American life, including the family, or an old-style, Reaganesque Republican, the current polling numbers will change very quickly.
did you just refer to Fred Thompson as a Reaganesque Republican? LMAO :rofl :rofl :rofl Ron Paul's the only Reaganesque candidate running. Fred Thompson's not a true conservative, he's a neo-con and there's nothing Reaganesque about that. However, IMO his politics won't even be considered. He's just a famous face with a grandfatherly-type sounding voice. He'll make people "feel safe" just by talking... awwww, how cute... Meanwhile, the neo-con agenda will be furthered and America will continue it's slide towards totalitarianism. I, for one, won't vote for him...
-
I'd like a fresh, valid third party from which to choose a candidate please. These other two are rotten.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
drug dealers are simply undocumented pharmasists..
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
I'd like a fresh, valid third party from which to choose a candidate please. These other two are rotten.
I wish a third party could work, just don't see it happening unfortunately. The GOP and the Dems have a lock on the brainless voters who just "can't let the other guys win". That's why I'm so excited about Ron Paul running, it's a rare chance for Liberty to have a freedom-loving candidate running in a major party. We need to take over the GOP and return it to its conservative roots. The third parties have the deck stacked against them to the extent that they just don't have a chance.
-
Actually, bs, Thompson is an old-style Federalistic Republican....which makes him a "paleo-con" I guess. He believes in a government system where the Federal government exercises only enumerated powers, and all remaining powers are delegated to the states.
Read a couple of blogs about him the other day. His philosophy is summed up by the statement, "Is this something that the government needs to get involved in, and if so which level of government?"
That is a very old, not new, concept.
The term "neo-con" is oft applied willy-nilly to Republicans who hold many diverse political viewpoints. When someone comes up with a definition for "neo-con" that everyone can agree with, let us know. Then we can decide for ourselves whether or not Fred Thompson meets the definition.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Actually, bs, Thompson is an old-style Federalistic Republican....which makes him a "paleo-con" I guess. He believes in a government system where the Federal government exercises only enumerated powers, and all remaining powers are delegated to the states.
Read a couple of blogs about him the other day. His philosophy is summed up by the statement, "Is this something that the government needs to get involved in, and if so which level of government?"
That is a very old, not new, concept.
The term "neo-con" is oft applied willy-nilly to Republicans who hold many diverse political viewpoints. When someone comes up with a definition for "neo-con" that everyone can agree with, let us know. Then we can decide for ourselves whether or not Fred Thompson meets the definition.
(psst, it's bsd...)
I wish I had more time to respond to your points. I'm in the midst of getting ready to head down to Philly to visit the folks for the weekend, so this copy/paste will have to suffice for now. I'll be happy to continue this conversation when I return...
"While in congress, Thompson, reportedly a good friend of Senator John McCain, (R-AZ) supported two obviously anti-free market bills: the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act and the Shays-Meehan bill restricting issue ads. He is also a member of Council on Foreign Relations, a main think-tank behind the idea of a North American Union that would eventually dissolve borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States to create one big super-nation. Thompson also seems to believe in a robust military presence worldwide and apparently advocates continued US military involvement in Iraq. Ron Paul's small government credentials extend beyond rhetoric, and even the many editorials and position papers he has authored. Ron Paul has consistently voted a constitutionalist line in congress, and thus his actions match his sentiments. He is neither a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, nor any other Washington think tank that advocates similar views." ((A vote for Fred Thompson is a vote for world government...may as well be voting directly for the United Nations because that is what's happening every time a Pro-One World Order, Globalist is voted in.)) From the page: "Should Fred Thompson enter the 2008 presidential race, he would become the fifth member of the globalist, NWO's Council on Foreign Relations to do so, joining fellow CFR-members, US Senator John McCain, (former VA) Gov. Jim Gilmore, AZ) Gov. Bill Richardson, and US Senator Chris Dodd. Furthermore, former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich, also a member of the CFR, is also considering entering the presidential race later this Fall (perhaps if enough conservatives don't take the bait and swallow the lie that globalist, First Amendment free-speech enemy Fred Thompson is a "conservative")."
-
Originally posted by lazs2
seems that you are still better off voting for any republican over any democrat.
With a billary or osamabama in the whitehouse right now.. we would have an "immigration bill" that would give a pass to any third world family willing to break into the country... they (the democrats) feel (right down party lines) that this bill is not leinient enough... that is unfair to illegals that are here and future illegals.
We would not be seeing even this compromise.. a much worse bill would already be signed.
The only reason this bill will not pass is because of republicans.
lazs
Laz,
I understand that The few Republicans totally rejecting this POS & voting the Bill down, is the only reason that POS Bill hasn't passed . Also I would never vote for any "crank-suckers on the Socialist/Democratic Party" , no matter what the hell they come up with !
Regards,
Bob/CHECKERS
-
Well bsd ;) , it appears, from the wording of the text, that it was taken from a Ron Paul for President blog. The assessment of the committees and organizations that Thompson is a member of was universally critical, and subjective at best. The assessment of them is based on things they have not yet done, but may be considering.
Because of obvious abuses of the campaign finance system there have been a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle calling for its reform. Thompson had a great deal of company on this issue. Are you going to say it wasn't needed?
I have more trouble supporting the ban on political ads by special interest groups immediately prior to an election; a clear violation of freedom of speech in my opinion. Buy should I refuse to vote for Thompson because of what a Ron Paul blog says about his stance on this issue? I think not....it's a single issue....and I have been unable to verify how he voted on it, or determine "why" he voted for it.
Have a nice trip.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Now, the following are the senators who voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. They are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was no voting representative.
How the Phuck is that even on the table. My blood boils when we talk about myself and future generations not seeing social security and these stunninghunks are talking about giving it to ***** Illegals who most likely have never paid taxes and into it to begin with. WTF!
Am I missing something here. Fk it why don't we just include Europe, Asia and the rest of the world. WTF!
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
I'd like a fresh, valid third party from which to choose a candidate please. These other two are rotten.
Word.
As I see it, it's time for another Tea Party, a voters revolution to rebel against the republican & democrat "royalty" thats been ruining this great country for decades; The royal (crime) family Republicans, or royal (crime) family democrats.
King George W. Fern would wear a stupid looking crown on his empty skull if he could get away with it.
Our forefathers had the good common sense to take a stand against ridiculousness and complete unfair indifference from authority.. but they didn't live in a dumbed down society that had people more interested in American Idol than which sociopath family was going to run the country (into the toilet).
I've got to hand it to the RNC / DNC, they effectiveness in which they have engineered the public into thinking "only" a republican or democrat can run the country should be a case study in mass manipulation taught in every school. So should King Fern linking Iraq to 9/11.. bravo!!
Attack parrot party slaves spinning reality on corporate owned cable news 24/7 works like a charm, the average American donkey brain eats it up and marches like a good clone to the ballot box to choose either "R" or "D".
The only way the average Joe US citizen will be paid any attention by the rejects in charge is if we take the .gov back from them... too bad people are too scared to give it a shot, could an (Ind) president do any worse the GW Fern or Bubba say hello to my little friend clinton?
-
term limits
-
Originally posted by john9001
term limits
yep, seems like it would be easy and faster to try that at least instead of sitting around wishing for a third party .. which would be just as corrupt as the other two in no time.
-
Ron Paul.....The candidate of the New World Order conspiracy whackos.
I've been hearing about the Council on Foreign Relations plot to install a world socialist government for 25 years now.
Well, if they are trying to do that they are really sucking at the job.
Here is a note of caution for those of you who don't believe in all these government conspiracies.
Ron Paul does or he thinks he can ride those who do believe into power and his candidacy is pretty scary.
You can already see the fanaticism of his followers. Down that road lies nothing but misery for this country.
His rhetoric sounds good to the narrow minded. It sounds like a good explanation for their own prejudices and simplistic view of the world.
Over and over you will hear RP referring to George Washington's Farewell Address when talking about Foreign Policy as if it was some sort of god like proclamation.
You will also hear him claim to follow the Constitution yet doesn't seem to understand the document in anything but the most simplistic terms.
His stance on immigration is a good example of his contradictory stances. Careful examination reveals that.
Ron Paul appeals to the worst of both sides of the political spectrum. The racism and xenophobia of both far left and right, the protectionism of the left and the lunacy of rigid enforcement of stupid laws common on the far right.
-
Any proof more concrete than tinfoil vibes? Let's see what you've got to support what you say.