Cleveland Buck;1095210 wrote:Santorum's bubble burst at the debate the other night. He was exposed and is getting ready to drop like a rock in the polls.

Let's hope so.

I Wear Pants;1095223 wrote:Let's hope so.

You may hope Santorum drops like a rock in the media polls, but if the gas prices continues to rise and unemployment remains high, Obama will drop like a rock in the only poll that matters this November.

I Wear Pants;1095223 wrote:Let's hope so.

You may hope Santorum drops like a rock in the media polls, but if gas prices continue to rise and unemployment remains high, Obama will drop like a rock in the only poll that matters this November.

BGFalcons82;1095059 wrote:Footwedge- Let me see if I got this right. Dr. Ronderful will show Americans the light of his policies through his use of the veto pen. While he stands on the street in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue waving his copy of our Constitution, he'll remind us all of what he's against. He apparently will propose nothing, just be against everything.

You expect that the liberal whiners will just sit back and not offer a fight? How'd that gubmint shutdown work out politically the last couple times it was tried? Oh wait...I forgot... The good doctor won't have to endure any opposition. He won't have to lead, just say "no"...right?

It's a fairy tale, footwedge. He has zero clue how to get his agenda approved and put together a winning team because he's NEVER done it before. Hell, y'all sound more like Sotero supporters each and every day.

I'll aks again..how will he be able to do something he's never ever done in 24 years in Congress?

You want to know Dr Pauls plan. His plan is to first get the American People on his side. His plan is not to get a bunch of lying idiots on his side. Once he has the people on his side. Congress will either shape up or get out. That is his plan I think. If he cant get congress to back him, that is what he will use the veto power for. I believe his plan is to protect the American People from the Federal Government. The difference with Paul is, he wants to be President to remove the restrictions on the American people. He wants to open up the market, provide the people with the opportunity to make their own decision and get government out of the way. I do not believe he wants to be President so he can go in there and pass laws like crazy and dictate how people should live. I want someone who will go in their and try to get rid of things not someone that is going to add more laws and more power to the government.

I know Levin, Rush and the rest are all telling you to vote for Santorum because he is the True conservative but I don't see how anyone can really believe that. These are the same guys who now criticize Bush for his spending yet want a guy who basically supported everything Bush stood for because sometimes you have to take one for the team and go against your beliefs, Yea that is the sign of a great leader for sure.

Ron Pauls plan is the ONLY plan that will reduce the debt/defecit but lets not pick him because he cant get that passed so pick one of the other three so their plan will get passed and add to the debt/defecit, that makes a lot of sense to me.

I have news for the Republican party, repealing Obamacare and Taxes are not the only things that will save this country. We had problems before Obamacare and the Bush tax cuts are still here. I do support repealing Obamacare and lowering taxes obviously but those two things alone will not solve the crisis we are in. I realize that it will be very hard for Paul to win the nomination. However I do believe the cause will continue on until we can finally snatch back the party from the Neo Cons and actually practice what we preach. I would rather not vote at all then vote for those other three.

It is not Mr. Paul's economic plan that people are opposed to. It's his foreign policy. It enough to keep him from being elected.

When people talk about Santorum beinga conservative it social conservatism that's being referred to.

It won't matter, however, neither Santorum nor Paul will receive the nomination.

pmoney25;1095359 wrote:You want to know Dr Pauls plan. His plan is to first get the American People on his side. His plan is not to get a bunch of lying idiots on his side. Once he has the people on his side. Congress will either shape up or get out. That is his plan I think. If he cant get congress to back him, that is what he will use the veto power for. I believe his plan is to protect the American People from the Federal Government. The difference with Paul is, he wants to be President to remove the restrictions on the American people. He wants to open up the market, provide the people with the opportunity to make their own decision and get government out of the way. I do not believe he wants to be President so he can go in there and pass laws like crazy and dictate how people should live. I want someone who will go in their and try to get rid of things not someone that is going to add more laws and more power to the government.

I know Levin, Rush and the rest are all telling you to vote for Santorum because he is the True conservative but I don't see how anyone can really believe that. These are the same guys who now criticize Bush for his spending yet want a guy who basically supported everything Bush stood for because sometimes you have to take one for the team and go against your beliefs, Yea that is the sign of a great leader for sure.

Ron Pauls plan is the ONLY plan that will reduce the debt/defecit but lets not pick him because he cant get that passed so pick one of the other three so their plan will get passed and add to the debt/defecit, that makes a lot of sense to me.

I have news for the Republican party, repealing Obamacare and Taxes are not the only things that will save this country. We had problems before Obamacare and the Bush tax cuts are still here. I do support repealing Obamacare and lowering taxes obviously but those two things alone will not solve the crisis we are in. I realize that it will be very hard for Paul to win the nomination. However I do believe the cause will continue on until we can finally snatch back the party from the Neo Cons and actually practice what we preach. I would rather not vote at all then vote for those other three.

pmoney - Thank you for actually taking the time to answer my questions. Very thoughtful and what I was expecting. It's a shame the other responders attacked candidates I supposedly endorse, but never have, and failed to address Dr. Paul's lifelong inability to get anything he stands for approved by a majority.

I agree with all of your/Paul's thoughts and ideas on what to do economically. No arguments here. You say he has to go to the American people. I agree and have said so repeatedly on the O.C. His problem is that he's been campaigning for POTUS for what...5 years now and he still can't get more than 10 to 15% of the American people to follow him. This is the exact same trouble/problem he has in the House. Only 1 in 10 listens to him. So how does he get a majority of Americans to be on his side when he's shown no ability to get even 267 on his side in 24 years? I know I'm saying it over and over again, but I'm trying to make a point. He can't speak well. He can't make cogent arguments without sounding like a wonk. He simply can't connect with a majority. I love his ideas, but he's just not a good salesman. If Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, or Newt Gingrich were to mouth Dr. Paul's exact philosophies and policies, you would see a groundswell of optimism and a true leader, IMO. They know how to connect to the American people whereas Dr. Ron hasn't, can't, and won't do it. Sad really, because I agree with him a lot except for his kumbaya foreign policy, which excludes me from voting for him.

I Wear Pants;1095170 wrote:I wasn't aware Ron Paul had veto power in congress.

Really? I thought he did. Darn. :thumbdown:

He has had the power to introduce legislation and put forth the effort to make his ideas become law, but he can't seem to do that either.

HitsRus;1094445 wrote:You'll have to forgive me, I'm not in the business...but does anybody know what happens when a nuclear tipped missile gets shot down?....I'm assuming that it doesn't just vaporize.




Allowing IAEA inspectors would be a sign of good faith and assauge a lot of the world's fears. What happened to supporting non proliferation?

True, it is unknown how an interceptor will react when hitting a nuclear missile. However, usually, the nuclear warheads do not arm until they are in the re-entry phase of the trajectory (you wouldn't want your own weapon armed while it is still in flight over your own country just in case the missile fails).
Plus, the interceptors planned for both sea and land in Europe, are boost phase, during the first part of the launch, so the weapon should not be armed. Still, unknown though how Iran would, if they ever got that far, arm their missiles.

Agreed on the IAEA. The latest report's main takeaway was Iran is not cooperating. And because of that, we all cannot rule out they are or will have military nuclear weapons program.

QuakerOats;1094584 wrote:George Bush put SS on the table with a good plan to start privatization -- he was crucified by democrats and the liberal media. Paul Ryan put a good plan on the table to begin to address the medicare system; he was crucified by democrats and the liberal media. Until the left truly joins in and accepts the reality that their do-nothing, kick-the-can, spend-n-tax more mentality is dooming us all, then nothing will happen.

And I suspect, that nothing will continue to happen because of the left's inability to deliver bad news and deal with it. Thus, Greece is coming to the States in the not too distant future. Good luck with that.

The Bush plan was good in theory, but the crisis of 2008 blew a huge hole in it. (My retirement would have been gone pretty much).
Some sort of hybrid with the Bush plan and the Ryan plan would be one way to go. I'll give both major credit for talking about it. More do, and get action in the Congress.
And we are not near Greece yet. Come on. That makes no macro economic sense. Quit speaking in hyperbole.

Con_Alma;1095364 wrote:It won't matter, however, neither Santorum nor Paul will receive the nomination.

You can bet on it.

BGFalcons82;1095378 wrote:. Sad really, because I agree with him a lot except for his kumbaya foreign policy, which excludes me from voting for him.

What kumbaya foreign policy? Not Paul. I think bringing home 50,000 troops in Germany is a little more than kumbaya. Or 40,000 in Japan..don't you think? Didn't that war end 67 years ago?

What you do not understand apparently, true conservative foreign policy stands for a damn strong defense..something that Paul staunchly agrees with. True conservative foreign policy does not include galavanting around the globe, installing puppet regimes, occupying their land, and patrolling their streets. There is nothing conservative about doing those things. Ike realized his mistake and ended Korea quickly. It took Nixon too long, but eventually he got it right and got the fug out of Nam. Reagan removed our troops from Lebanon.

If you think so highly of fighting these unwinnable, and never ending wars, then gather up your family. go to Ft Dix, get in shape, and go fight em.

No..what we do is far from conservative....conservatism don't export fascist attitudes through the force of tanks, bombers, and bullets.

Today's neoconservatives have joined the ranks of the radical left...the Trotskyites. Don't let the chickenhawks like Hannity and Limbaugh fool you.

Neocons..the radical left that invaded/infested America's right wing, and the Russian leftist Leon Trotsky.

To the right winged war mongers, know your history....

http://polizeros.com/2008/02/04/wapo-neocon-movement-began-with-leon-trotsky/

Footwedge;1095533 wrote:Neocons..the radical left that invaded/infested America's right wing, and the Russian leftist Leon Trotsky.

To the right winged war mongers, know your history....

Footie, you're an all-over-the-map neo-libertarian wing nut yourself. wowsers :rolleyes:

believer;1095564 wrote:Footie, you're an all-over-the-map neo-libertarian wing nut yourself. wowsers :rolleyes:

Hey man....you ain't tellin me nothin new. I know my history....and it sure ain't pretty....just ask my wife.

Footwedge;1095649 wrote:Hey man....you ain't tellin me nothin new. I know my history....and it sure ain't pretty....just ask my wife.

lol I think we both have the same destination in mind....we just disagree on how to get there!

BGFalcons82;1095380 wrote:Really? I thought he did. Darn. :thumbdown:

He has had the power to introduce legislation and put forth the effort to make his ideas become law, but he can't seem to do that either.

None of those crooked bastards will vote for anything that goes against their puppet masters/campaign contributors. Too much bribe, er, lobby money involved.

Con_Alma;1095364 wrote:It is not Mr. Paul's economic plan that people are opposed to. It's his foreign policy. It enough to keep him from being elected.

When people talk about Santorum beinga conservative it social conservatism that's being referred to.

It won't matter, however, neither Santorum nor Paul will receive the nomination.

No one has ever intelligently articulated why Paul's foreign policy is bad.

I Wear Pants;1095706 wrote:No one has ever intelligently articulated why Paul's foreign policy is bad.

Maybe it's because they might not think it's bad.

It doesn't have to be bad for someone to think there's a better way to approach things. A way that that the individual agrees with much more than Paul's way.

Those have been routinely articulated.

I am not willing to withdraw from locations across the world nor do I want to. Presence does much in the way of diplomacy in others areas and as it relates to other issues.

Knowing that we are willing to plant our feet firmly in a location outside our borders if we need to and want to changes the way others address us.

Con_Alma;1095819 wrote:Maybe it's because they might not think it's bad.

It doesn't have to be bad for someone to think there's a better way to approach things. A way that that the individual agrees with much more than Paul's way.

Those have been routinely articulated

I am not willing to withdraw from locations across the world nor do I want to. Presence does much in the way of diplomacy in others areas and as it relates to other issues.

Knowing that we are willing to plant our feet firmly in a location outside our borders if we need to and want to changes the way others address us.

Again, why are you not willing to withdraw from locations?

You're just saying what you are or aren't willing to do without justifying the reasons or what you think the results will be. Though the results of our current and past foreign policy for the last 50 years or so are pretty clear right now.

&#8220resident Obama wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob,” he said. “There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor. And trying to indoctrinate them.” - Santorum

The GOP has officially jumped the shark. The war against intelligence is ridiculous.

I Wear Pants;1095863 wrote:Again, why are you not willing to withdraw from locations?

You're just saying what you are or aren't willing to do without justifying the reasons or what you think the results will be. Though the results of our current and past foreign policy for the last 50 years or so are pretty clear right now.

No, you are correct. I have not justified the reasons.

I would rather have the continued show of presence in areas where we engaged in conflict as a sign of strength. This increases the credibility to those who we have negotiations with and military strikes are on the table.

I am safe. Our foreign policy over the past 50 years had a role in that. I am glad we intervene as a routine practice. It's not always ideal nor perfect.

Mr. Paul's foreign policy is the why I believe people will not vote for him.

Con_Alma;1095871 wrote:No, you are correct. I have not justified the reasons.

I would rather have the continued show of presence in areas where we engaged in conflict as a sign of strength. This increases the credibility to those who we have negotiations with and military strikes are on the table.

I am safe. Our foreign policy over the past 50 years had a role in that. I am glad we intervene as a routine practice. It's not always ideal nor perfect.

Mr. Paul's foreign policy is the why I believe people will not vote for him.

I disagree greatly but at least you attempted to justify your support of policy. Very few people do.

Con_Alma;1095819 wrote:Maybe it's because they might not think it's bad.

It doesn't have to be bad for someone to think there's a better way to approach things. A way that that the individual agrees with much more than Paul's way.

Those have been routinely articulated.

I am not willing to withdraw from locations across the world nor do I want to. Presence does much in the way of diplomacy in others areas and as it relates to other issues.

Knowing that we are willing to plant our feet firmly in a location outside our borders if we need to and want to changes the way others address us.

So where does the 1.1 trillion come from annually to police the world? Grapefruit trees? What I want to know...how is policing the world safer when every single, stinking report worth a grain of salt has documented proof that policing the world and running a global empire has made us less safe.

Your view is not alone by any stretch. But those of you that share that view need to understand that there is a huge price to pay in terms of blood and money. As long as you are OK with military Keynesianism and pissing away this annual trillion...that we obviously do not have...then fine. There are others from both sides of the aisle that are sick of it.

Footwedge;1095897 wrote:So where does the 1.1 trillion come from annually to police the world? Grapefruit trees? What I want to know...how is policing the world safer when every single, stinking report worth a grain of salt has undocumented proof that policing the world and running a global empire has made us less safe.

Your view is not alone by any stretch. But those of you that share that view need to understand that there is a huge price to pay in terms of blood and money. As long as you are OK with military Keynesianism and pissing away this annual trillion...that we obviously do not have...then fine. There are others from both sides of the aisle that are sick of it.

No worries. We have a printing press. As long as those filthy liberals don't use it to hand out money here at home then we are free to use it to hand out money overseas and buy new bombs to shower on the people of countries that don't do things to our liking. Fiscal responsibility is for those old timers that were debunked decades ago.

Printing money to bomb kids in third world countries = good. Printing money to spend on health care for US citizens = evil communism. Obviously.

To be fair both solutions are stupid but I get a bit upset when people support the former and then act like the latter is unjust.

Footwedge;1095897 wrote:So where does the 1.1 trillion come from annually to police the world? Grapefruit trees? ...

Cut social program.

Footwedge;1095897 wrote:...What I want to know...how is policing the world safer when every single, stinking report worth a grain of salt has documented proof that policing the world and running a global empire has made us less safe. ...

I mnot less safe by any means.

Footwedge;1095897 wrote:...Your view is not alone by any stretch. But those of you that share that view need to understand that there is a huge price to pay in terms of blood and money. As long as you are OK with military Keynesianism and pissing away this annual trillion...that we obviously do not have...then fine. There are others from both sides of the aisle that are sick of it.

Of course there's a huge price to pay.

There's not enough people on both sides of the aisle that are sick of it to do do it any differently yet. There may be one day but it isn't today.

There certainly aren't enough people sick of it to elect Ron Paul yet.