" If the former, then your vote doesn't count in this election, because you and Nancy P. are voting for the same president ... just with a different name."

I'm going to lose my #^%$.

Barack Obama is the worst decision this country has made in my lifetime. The last 3 years have been absolutely disastrous. We've increased debt by the largest real number on record with no end in sight. The economy continues to sputter. Forget economic failures for a moment, we no have sociological issues with the millennials not having jobs, not having families, buried in debt leading to the OWS movement. We have cronyism appointees with the Wise Latina and Kagan, neither of which will be looked on favorably aside from delivering a hard left vote on SCOTUS. We have an expensive "healthcare" plan that most people hate, few people benefit from and even fewer have even read.

But Barry is cool because he's sort of black, and goes on the Jimmy Fallon show.

We deserve to fail if we vote him in again. '08 can be talked away because he didn't have a past (which is why I didn't vote for him), in '12 we should know better. If we don't? America deserves what we elect.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:I'm going to lose my #^%$.

Going to?

Now that you've posted, indeed. I've lost it. Like many Americans wondering what the hell happened to this country.

And congrats, for the 1,475th post you've said nothing relevant. Congrats on that, and your crappy avatar. When I see a fat, out shape boxer I know that something irrelevant will be stated. Do you nickname the guy Mr. Irrelevant?

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:" If the former, then your vote doesn't count in this election, because you and Nancy P. are voting for the same president ... just with a different name."

I'm going to lose my #^%$.

Barack Obama is the worst decision this country has made in my lifetime. The last 3 years have been absolutely disastrous. We've increased debt by the largest real number on record with no end in sight. The economy continues to sputter. Forget economic failures for a moment, we no have sociological issues with the millennials not having jobs, not having families, buried in debt leading to the OWS movement. We have cronyism appointees with the Wise Latina and Kagan, neither of which will be looked on favorably aside from delivering a hard left vote on SCOTUS. We have an expensive "healthcare" plan that most people hate, few people benefit from and even fewer have even read.

But Barry is cool because he's sort of black, and goes on the Jimmy Fallon show.

We deserve to fail if we vote him in again. '08 can be talked away because he didn't have a past (which is why I didn't vote for him), in '12 we should know better. If we don't? America deserves what we elect.

Barry hasn't done a great job, but everything you've mentioned in that post would have happened under McCain and will happen under Romney.

There are major structural issues in this country that have been percolating for 30 years that are just all kind of coming to a head now.

Many of the solutions that worked in the past to turn things around aren't going to work now in this global environment, and I don't think people are prepared to take the steps needed to truly turn the tide back in the right direction.

Our economy has gone from one that makes stuff to one that pushes paper around. Until that changes, nothing is going to matter be it taxes, regulations or the like. As long as companies can pay a Chicom 10 cents an hour to do a job that would require $10 an hour here we are spinning our wheels.

We could cut regulations, cut taxes, and it isn't going to stop the outsourcing that is crippling this economy and will continue to as long as companies find it financially beneficial to do so. We are in a race to the bottom, and the sooner we all acknowledge that yesterday's solutions are going to work for today's problems the sooner we can start coming up with a plan.

"Barry hasn't done a great job, but everything you've mentioned in that post would have happened under McCain and will happen under Romney."

If you think for a moment that McCain/Romney would have put Sotomayer on the Court, I disagree to the extent one can disagree. Aside from being incompetent, the Obama administration has been partisan.

I'd like to think McCain/Romney would had at least be less incompetent, if not lesser partisan.

Otrap has it right. The Libertarian portion of the Republican party is growing. Ron Paul is getting 4k to 10k people showing up at events across the country. Not too bad for a candidate who supposedly on the fringe and is crazy. At this point it is highly unlikely that Paul will win but he will win in the long run. His message is resonating with younger people who do not want to carry on this terrible debt, do not want the erosion of civil liberties, corporate bailouts and do not want to police the globe killing Americans and wasting money.

After this debacle of a Primary season and after the debacle that will be this next election. The Republican party will hopefully finally abandon the high spending, war mongering, big government policies that have infested the party.

Obama has been bad and I want him out of office asap, but lets step back into reality a bit. He really has catered to the "Republican" party most of his term. Has not raised taxes(kept Bush Tax Cuts), still has the Wars going on, basically the same foreign policy as Bush. Stimulus package which was a Republican idea. Continuation of the Patriot act and now the NDAA.

But he is black, has a funny sounding name and caved in on his real health care plan to give a plan that so called Republicans use to support so he is the most communist/marxist president ever.

Obama, Romney, Democrats, Republicans......or Ron Paul. Pretty easy choice in my opinion.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164810 wrote:"Barry hasn't done a great job, but everything you've mentioned in that post would have happened under McCain and will happen under Romney."

If you think for a moment that McCain/Romney would have put Sotomayer on the Court, I disagree to the extent one can disagree. Aside from being incompetent, the Obama administration has been partisan.

I'd like to think McCain/Romney would had at least be less incompetent, if not lesser partisan.

The court is a lost cause at this point. Republicans appoint corporatists, and the liberals appoint socialists.

The days of the court not being a totally overt political body are long over. They always have been, but the fix is in far worse than it ever has been. They don't even try and hide it anymore, probably why their approval ratings are at historical lows.

Romney/McCain would have been equally as partisan/incompetent. There are no moderates for either party in Congress, which makes deal making impossible.

Now that 60 is the new 50, and there are no moderates on either side, it is impossible to do anything. That severely hinderrs any president going forward as far as hoping to do anything to start getting us back on the right track.

Even if the Dems lose the Senate and Presidency, by virtue of having 41 senators they are going to grind this country to a halt the next 4 years the way it has the past 2 since they lost the 60.

You think it's bad now, wait until that realization sets in that owning all 3 branches of govt doesn't allow you to do jack shit in this country if you don't have 60 senators. You will see some real anger from the Republicans who are going to have the playbook turned back on them.

When Kennedy retires the government will no longer be functional. Judges can't get confirmed now, but one who will swing the balance of the court for another 30 years and we haven't seen anything like the gridlock that is coming.

It doesn't matter who takes over at this point because change is impossible to enact. The government is and will continue to be on autopilot until one side or the other gets a big enough majority that they can defeat filibusters as well as sustain the loss of a few of their senators. The Dems had 60, but couldn't get anything done because the 60th vote was always holding them hostage for some palm greasing.

The filibuster has a place, but it is killing this country slowly, and you will see it first hand when the Republicans win back the Senate/Pres and we continue to run trillion dollar deficits because they can't get any legislation past. It will be a nightmare.

jhay78;1164776 wrote:I don't have a problem with someone choosing to vote for Ron Paul or another third-party candidate or a square of toilet paper. It's up to the Republican nominee to convince such people that he is a candidate worthy of their vote. Even though a century of presidential elections along with sheer mathematics should be enough to get their attention, it's up to Romney to bridge the gap.

I do have a problem with people threatening that, if their 80+ year old, multiple-times-fallen-short presidential candidate who routinely tinkers around the edges of multiple conspiracy theories doesn't get the nomination, then they hope to see the Republican Party burned to the ground. All while claiming with a straight face that every conservative who doesn't embrace libertarianism is a raging Marxist and is no different from Obama.

This is close to how I feel. I have my issues and I have voiced them. Although Paul's age has no bearing. His mental faculties are in good shape. He is no where near drooling in his wheelchair in a nursing home. I admit I am struggling hard with casting a vote for Willard. Many of us are. The Ronulans should respect this and use a little political savvy when trying to sway those that hold a political ideology closest to their own. I fear the big government policies the republican party has so many times times embraced in order to garner votes and also their own lust for central power will leave them at the helm when the titanic sinks. Its iceberg dead ahead. Obama has us full steam ahead straight towards the iceberg. Some argue we turn left. I am not sure Willard will turn the wheel far enough to the right get us around the iceberg. Willard's policies may turn the wheel slightly to the right but we will likely graze this thing on the opposite side of the ship. At this point there will be no worry about those who want to burn the party down. It will already be under water.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164802 wrote:And congrats, for the 1,475th post you've said nothing relevant. Congrats on that, and your crappy avatar. When I see a fat, out shape boxer I know that something irrelevant will be stated. Do you nickname the guy Mr. Irrelevant?

And how do you possibly still not know how to use the quote function after 4k+ posts? :laugh:

2kool4skool;1164827 wrote:



And how do you possibly still not know how to use the quote function after 4k+ posts? :laugh:

I've explained it to you at least twice, not that you would remember it. When I respond to the entire post, I'll quote the post. When I respond to a particular argument, I will put the specific argument in quotes. I've never changed someone's words, I never will. If someone can point out when I ever did I won't post here again - an easy boast because I haven't done it.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164830 wrote:When I respond to a particular argument, I will put the specific argument in quotes.

You can do that with the quote feature...

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:I'm going to lose my #^%$.

Deep breaths. You'll be alright.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:Barack Obama is the worst decision this country has made in my lifetime.

Then you're seeing through too small a scope. Too much of the stage was set for President Obama to get elected. The Republicans, with the nice-but-hapless 'W' at the helm, created a party that was easy to dislike. Expanding the military interventionism, increasing the debt by leaps and bounds, passing a stimulus, expanding the Department of Education, etc. This is the kind of stuff Democrats are supposed to be vilified for doing, but here the Republicans were doing it? Seems rather hypocritical, I think, and certainly trivializes what SHOULD be the wide differences between Conservatism and Liberalism. Honestly, it's not surprising that Obama won. A retarded Mexican Sasquatch would have won if he'd run on the 'D' ticket that year. And everyone shares the blame ... the Republican Party included. It wouldn't have mattered if Reagan himself had risen from the dead to run in that election. The Republican Party had damaged its reputation beyond the timely repair necessary to compete in that election.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:The last 3 years have been absolutely disastrous.

No argument here. All those things Obama promised to change about the Bush administration? Other than an attempted healthcare reform, he hasn't changed much. Obama is every bit the military-interventionist, deficit-spending, stimulus-pushing, Federal government-expanding, dollar-destroying president that GWB was ... and THEN some. He IS worse, so don't hear me say he wasn't. But Romney will be worse than GWB as well (if we go by his track record). Romney has a history, both public and private sector, of doing what is best for Romney. Makes him a FANTASTIC business owner ... but not a fantastic politician at any level.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:We've increased debt by the largest real number on record with no end in sight.

Well, there could be an end, but nobody likes those views.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:The economy continues to sputter. Forget economic failures for a moment, we no have sociological issues with the millennials not having jobs, not having families, buried in debt leading to the OWS movement.

And yet, who have the OWS found to rail against? Not the administration in power during their demonstrations. It's the greedy, evil people on Wall Street, who are all getting the bailouts and who make good money.

Some of them, however, actually distinguish the corporatism that is causing so much of the trouble: the government and big business playing grab-ass in the shower together, and NEITHER party has done anything to address it. Wanna get the support of the smarter ones in the OWS crowd without betraying one iota of your conservative roots? Denounce, and demonstrate your denunciation of, corporatism. Zero bailouts. Zero stimuli (weird saying that plurally). Zero interest rate falsification or manipulation.

Do you see Romney doing ANY of that, honestly?

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:We have cronyism appointees with the Wise Latina and Kagan, neither of which will be looked on favorably aside from delivering a hard left vote on SCOTUS.

Neither major party has been the shining bright example in this regard, but I do agree with your examples.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:We have an expensive "healthcare" plan that most people hate, few people benefit from and even fewer have even read.

Different cause, but it's the PATRIOT Act all over again (from protecting ourselves from ourselves to protecting ourselves from everything that could hurt us ... it appears that the FedGov is pretty much taking care of us as it is).

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:But Barry is cool because he's sort of black, and goes on the Jimmy Fallon show.

Don't get me started ... spends too much time trying to be a "celebrity."

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:We deserve to fail if we vote him in again.

I'm not sure it matters at this point. Should Romney win, we've got two major candidates from the same cookie cutter mold.

Manhattan Buckeye;1164787 wrote:'08 can be talked away because he didn't have a past (which is why I didn't vote for him), in '12 we should know better. If we don't? America deserves what we elect.

Hate to say it, but this is the case either way ...

jhay78;1164776 wrote:I don't have a problem with someone choosing to vote for Ron Paul or another third-party candidate or a square of toilet paper. It's up to the Republican nominee to convince such people that he is a candidate worthy of their vote. Even though a century of presidential elections along with sheer mathematics should be enough to get their attention, it's up to Romney to bridge the gap.

I do have a problem with people threatening that, if their 80+ year old, multiple-times-fallen-short presidential candidate who routinely tinkers around the edges of multiple conspiracy theories doesn't get the nomination, then they hope to see the Republican Party burned to the ground. All while claiming with a straight face that every conservative who doesn't embrace libertarianism is a raging Marxist and is no different from Obama.

And this is exactly why the Paulists are part of the problem.

jhay78;1164776 wrote:I don't have a problem with someone choosing to vote for Ron Paul or another third-party candidate or a square of toilet paper. It's up to the Republican nominee to convince such people that he is a candidate worthy of their vote. Even though a century of presidential elections along with sheer mathematics should be enough to get their attention, it's up to Romney to bridge the gap.

I do have a problem with people threatening that, if their 80+ year old, multiple-times-fallen-short presidential candidate who routinely tinkers around the edges of multiple conspiracy theories doesn't get the nomination, then they hope to see the Republican Party burned to the ground. All while claiming with a straight face that every conservative who doesn't embrace libertarianism is a raging Marxist and is no different from Obama.

This is precisely why the "Pauliban" is part of the problem.

The last 3 years have been absolutely disastrous.

The stock market is up big time, so for the fat cat bankers on Wall Street they are getting what they paid for with BHO.

To hell with the rest of us and how the economy works for normal people, as long as Wall Street is cleaning up all is well with the world.

IggyPride00;1164901 wrote:The stock market is up big time, so for the fat cat bankers on Wall Street they are getting what they paid for with BHO.

To hell with the rest of us and how the economy works for normal people, as long as Wall Street is cleaning up all is well with the world.

My 401k is pretty happy.

fish82;1164937 wrote:My 401k is pretty happy.

It won't be when the stock market eventually crumbles. It's not a matter of if, its a matter of when.

fish82;1164937 wrote:My 401k is pretty happy.

Until you see what it buys compared to what it bought 12 years ago, even though the total value was probably similar.

Look at the end of the day, you have to vote for who you most agree with. Right now, that man is Ron Paul.

Cleveland Buck;1164975 wrote:Until you see what it buys compared to what it bought 12 years ago, even though the total value was probably similar.

Well, it's happier than it was 3 1/2 years ago anyway.

jhay78;1164776 wrote:I do have a problem with people threatening that, if their 80+ year old, multiple-times-fallen-short presidential candidate who routinely tinkers around the edges of multiple conspiracy theories doesn't get the nomination, then they hope to see the Republican Party burned to the ground. All while claiming with a straight face that every conservative who doesn't embrace libertarianism is a raging Marxist and is no different from Obama.

Just a couple points:

1) The fact that it's Paul is irrelevant. The fact that he holds the positions he holds is what makes him a popular candidate, particularly given the two biggest parties' conventional aptitude for looking remarkably similar to one another in recent years.

2) If the Republican Party in its current form ... the one who pays lip service to "fiscal conservatism" (on which it USED TO hold the corner of the market), but whose actions in elected office at the federal level have been laughably hypocritical as of late ... refuses to return to those roots that kept America from collapsing under the weight of its own debt, then I honestly don't see any use for it. It stood for the right principles at one time, but that time is since past. Instead of looking to return to the positions that made the party anything it could be proud of, its constituency shows a complete absence of conviction and principle (I thought Republicans were supposed to pride themselves on standing for what is right ... standing on principle). They'll just vote for whichever candidate has the 'R' next to his or her name, because ... well ... it's gotta be better than having a 'D' next to your name, right? Issues be damned, it's the letter that counts, right?

3) Ron Paul isn't a Libertarian. Libertarians can easily side with him, because at the federal level, his views (govern strictly by the US Constitution) and the Libertarian views (govern only when absolutely necessary) coincide well. The man is, however, merely a strict Constitutional Republican. Doubt he's a conventional Conservative at heart? Look at his state and local voting record. Through a means that permits it, he votes for Texas to recognize one man and one woman as the requirement for marriage. He has, on several occasions, supported making abortion illegal in Texas, if the issue is ever rightfully left up to the states. He still holds to his fiscally conservative guns at all levels. So, he's a Republican, but he believes that the laws and practices of the federal government ... even he himself as a member ... should have to submit first to the authority of the US Constitution. No other candidate seems to embrace relinquishing control of the population on patriotic principle.

Now, as for me, I'm a Libertarian, and as such, I wouldn't vote for Paul as a state Governor or even a Mayor, most likely. But because of the practicality of our US Constitution, he's the only candidate that makes sense. Has nothing to do with him being in his 70s. Has nothing to do with him being a Libertarian (because he technically isn't at any level). Has nothing to do with any conspiracy theories you might be thinking of (I know he's publicly denounced the 9-11 truthers, but I'm curious what other ones he is still close to espousing ... maybe a hint?).

It has to do with him being the only one who has practiced in his personal and professional life what he preaches in Congress and on the campaign trail. He's the only one who seems interested in submitting to the Constitution as POTUS. He's the only one who seems to be for anything but big taxes, even bigger debt spending, an enemy creating and fiscally irresponsible foreign policy, infringing on the privacy rights of the citizens, and restricting people's personal lives without right or cause or logical justification.

believer;1164878 wrote:This is precisely why the "Pauliban" is part of the problem.

Between the two, the majority of the Republican Party is a MUCH bigger problem than the "Pauliban."

IggyPride00;1164819 wrote:The court is a lost cause at this point. Republicans appoint corporatists, and the liberals appoint socialists.

The days of the court not being a totally overt political body are long over. They always have been, but the fix is in far worse than it ever has been. They don't even try and hide it anymore, probably why their approval ratings are at historical lows.

Romney/McCain would have been equally as partisan/incompetent. There are no moderates for either party in Congress, which makes deal making impossible.

Now that 60 is the new 50, and there are no moderates on either side, it is impossible to do anything. That severely hinderrs any president going forward as far as hoping to do anything to start getting us back on the right track.

Even if the Dems lose the Senate and Presidency, by virtue of having 41 senators they are going to grind this country to a halt the next 4 years the way it has the past 2 since they lost the 60.

You think it's bad now, wait until that realization sets in that owning all 3 branches of govt doesn't allow you to do jack **** in this country if you don't have 60 senators. You will see some real anger from the Republicans who are going to have the playbook turned back on them.

When Kennedy retires the government will no longer be functional. Judges can't get confirmed now, but one who will swing the balance of the court for another 30 years and we haven't seen anything like the gridlock that is coming.

It doesn't matter who takes over at this point because change is impossible to enact. The government is and will continue to be on autopilot until one side or the other gets a big enough majority that they can defeat filibusters as well as sustain the loss of a few of their senators. The Dems had 60, but couldn't get anything done because the 60th vote was always holding them hostage for some palm greasing.

The filibuster has a place, but it is killing this country slowly, and you will see it first hand when the Republicans win back the Senate/Pres and we continue to run trillion dollar deficits because they can't get any legislation past. It will be a nightmare.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Ron Paul's campaign marchers continue to badger me for more money. This, after I've notified them on several occasions, that before I fork over another dime, he must break away from the Republican Party.

Hey Ron...this just in...they don't like you...nor your policies. Fox News can't stand you either. Helllooo? It's time to shit and get off the pot.

Footwedge;1166435 wrote:Ron Paul's campaign marchers continue to badger me for more money. This, after I've notified them on several occasions, that before I fork over another dime, he must break away from the Republican Party.

Hey Ron...this just in...they don't like you...nor your policies. Fox News can't stand you either. Helllooo? It's time to shit and get off the pot.

Not before the Pauliban burns the party down.

Unless the voting booths burn to the ground in Tejas today, Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee by attracting more than 1144 delegates to the convention - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2115940,00.html

I found this ad from Karl Rove to be spot-on regarding Barry's continual attacks on Bain Capital. Rove cuts through the fat when he points out Bain used private money whereas Barry uses the people's money to pay off his bundlers and sponsors. I'd be willing to bet the Bain-drum is silenced after Rove's ad makes the rounds. http://nation.foxnews.com/karl-rove/2012/05/29/rove-video-failed-public-equity-president