Perry falling and Christie not running are fine by me.

bigdaddy2003;916132 wrote:Can anyone see why Ann Coulter is so big on the guy?

The bigger question: Who cares what Ann Coulter thinks?

Belly35;920444 wrote:Belly !

Sweet Moses!

bigdaddy2003;920890 wrote:Perry falling and Christie not running are fine by me.

This. As far as I'm concerned, the further Perry is in the "Republican" race, the better.

I got a kick out of this:
[video=youtube;ebchO6s-SBE][/video]

Leibowitz has some funny stuff.

2kool4skool;921094 wrote:The bigger question: Who cares what Ann Coulter thinks?

Well I don't so much "care" what she thinks even though I agree with her most of the time. I just thought it was odd that she brags on all of the political shows that she wants him to run after hearing his stance on certain issues.

I still like Ron Paul but I am starting to like Herman Cain quite a bit the more I hear him speak. Along with Paul he is one of the few candidates who actually has plans instead of generic talking points.

Rick Perry is falling fast and thank goodness.

I like Cain a lot as well.

I like several elements of what Cain says, and I do like that he's one of maybe 2 candidates that indicates that he's been thinking as much about what he'd do as president as he is how to become president.

When I see and hear Perry, I want to smack him, because out of all the candidates on the Republican side, he seems to be the one who is just all-out playing the game.

Nevermind that I hate a good portion of what he supports and stands for, I don't want someone in office that is going to focus his attentions on THAT kind of stuff.

If you focus your attention on solutions PRIOR to election, you're going to have a very solid platform for election. Media aside, I see only two candidates who have that kind of platform.

I personally will vote Paul, as I have now switched to a registered Republican in order to vote in these primaries, and I still do have issues with Cain on some topics, but I can at least appreciate that he's less of a "politician" than most in these debates.

Perry looked like a ventriliquist dummy at the last debate. I like some of the things Perry stand for. Mainly big on states sovereignty. I have paid a lot of attention to Herman Cain since the last debate. I really like him. Unless being in the top tier causes him to become more political and soften his message, I will likely for Cain.

Krauthammer Warns Obama Will Suffer Landslide Election


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/29/krauthammer_warns_obama_will_suffer_landslide_election.html


bingo

I like the way Cain presents himself up there and he does have some decent ideas. I do appreciate that he isn't a typical politician up there, although he flip-flops just as much as they do. Here are my issues with him.

1. He insisted for years that there was no need to audit the Federal Reserve until he changed his tune recently because it is the popular stance. If he was president obviously he wouldn't support it.

2. He questioned the constitutionality of the president assassinating American citizens without due process earlier this year when they were trying to get the guy they just killed. Then after they killed him he was all for it.

3. His 9-9-9 plan sounds good, but in reality all it does is add a VAT tax. He will never get a 9% flat income tax or a 9% corporate tax through Congress, so in reality we will just end up with the same tax code we have now plus a 9% VAT. No thanks.

4. He supported bailing out the banks at the time and still does.

5. Supports the Patriot Act and also the assassination of Al-Awlaki, so our constitutional rights are obviously of no consequence to him.

I would rather not vote at all then vote for Cain, even if I do like him better than the other clowns like Romney, Perry, Christie, and company.

^^ Some excellent points.

Cleveland Buck;921488 wrote:I like the way Cain presents himself up there and he does have some decent ideas. I do appreciate that he isn't a typical politician up there, although he flip-flops just as much as they do. Here are my issues with him.

1. He insisted for years that there was no need to audit the Federal Reserve until he changed his tune recently because it is the popular stance. If he was president obviously he wouldn't support it.

2. He questioned the constitutionality of the president assassinating American citizens without due process earlier this year when they were trying to get the guy they just killed. Then after they killed him he was all for it.

3. His 9-9-9 plan sounds good, but in reality all it does is add a VAT tax. He will never get a 9% flat income tax or a 9% corporate tax through Congress, so in reality we will just end up with the same tax code we have now plus a 9% VAT. No thanks.

4. He supported bailing out the banks at the time and still does.

5. Supports the Patriot Act and also the assassination of Al-Awlaki, so our constitutional rights are obviously of no consequence to him.

I would rather not vote at all then vote for Cain, even if I do like him better than the other clowns like Romney, Perry, Christie, and company.

Reasons why I still wouldn't vote for him. I was going to flesh some of these out (namely the PATRIOT Act support and the initial disagreement with auditing the Fed). Hard to do on a phone though.

I still like more of his action plans than most of the others, but I guess that's not saying much.

For the 50th time Krsipy Kreme Christie is not running.

Cleveland Buck;921488 wrote:I like the way Cain presents himself up there and he does have some decent ideas. I do appreciate that he isn't a typical politician up there, although he flip-flops just as much as they do. Here are my issues with him.

1. He insisted for years that there was no need to audit the Federal Reserve until he changed his tune recently because it is the popular stance. If he was president obviously he wouldn't support it.

2. He questioned the constitutionality of the president assassinating American citizens without due process earlier this year when they were trying to get the guy they just killed. Then after they killed him he was all for it.

3. His 9-9-9 plan sounds good, but in reality all it does is add a VAT tax. He will never get a 9% flat income tax or a 9% corporate tax through Congress, so in reality we will just end up with the same tax code we have now plus a 9% VAT. No thanks.

4. He supported bailing out the banks at the time and still does.

5. Supports the Patriot Act and also the assassination of Al-Awlaki, so our constitutional rights are obviously of no consequence to him.

I would rather not vote at all then vote for Cain, even if I do like him better than the other clowns like Romney, Perry, Christie, and company.

You could make a list like that for every Politician some list's would be longer (Obama's for example) but I doubt any would be shorter. Herman Cain would be better than who is currently in Office as would a couple other of the Repub candidates.

Skyhook79;921724 wrote:You could make a list like that for every Politician some list's would be longer (Obama's for example) but I doubt any would be shorter. Herman Cain would be better than who is currently in Office as would a couple other of the Repub candidates.

This.

Skyhook79;921724 wrote:You could make a list like that for every Politician some list's would be longer (Obama's for example) but I doubt any would be shorter. Herman Cain would be better than who is currently in Office as would a couple other of the Repub candidates.

That's right, and that's why I like Cain more than the others. Perry, Romney, Obama, Christie are all the same. Cain is slightly different. I'm not voting for any of them. I'll vote for the one who is completely different from all of them.

Cleveland Buck;921796 wrote:That's right, and that's why I like Cain more than the others. Perry, Romney, Obama, Christie are all the same. Cain is slightly different. I'm not voting for any of them. I'll vote for the one who is completely different from all of them.

Sooooo....you're voting for Obama then?

QuakerOats;921463 wrote:Krauthammer Warns Obama Will Suffer Landslide Election


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/29/krauthammer_warns_obama_will_suffer_landslide_election.html


bingo

Wow.....a conservative columnist saying the President "could" suffer a landslide. Yes...he said COULD not WILL

The Republican nominee could suffer a landslide as well

Ty Webb;922041 wrote:Wow.....a conservative columnist saying the President "could" suffer a landslide. Yes...he said COULD not WILL

The Republican nominee could suffer a landslide as well

Obama's approval is currently at 31% with independents. Which do you think is more likely?

I truly don't believe either is very likely...

Here is a question I have for my Republican friends here...

I friend of mine at work who is a Republican said something to the effect of people were pushing Christie to run because they are scared they can't win with anyone else. Anyone think that is the truth? he also said they don't have a candidate who is electable nationally. Perry can't win in the north,Romney can't win in the south,Cain most likely won't be taken seriously(much like Paul)

I do not agree with Cain on everything, that is for sure. He is one of the only candidates (and that includes the current incumbant) who has real, actual ideas on how to fix things. Everyone else (save R.Paul) is just spitting out one liners and political rhetoric, that includes the current President as well.

However, I will give Obama credit for making that hard choice about using the drone to kill a terrorist who happens to be an American citizen.

1. He is an admitted terrorist who has stated his hatred for the US and has been involved in plans to attack the US. That is the definition of Treason.
2. Treason is the only crime described in our Constitution and is punishable by death.
3. Would be nearly impossible to go in and arrest him in Yemen.
4. This is no different than a murderer who is holding a hostage with a gun and a police sniper shoots the killer. That man would be a US citizen and got killed without a trial. This man was caught red handed, admitted his actions over and over again, and went to hide in a country we couldn't arrest him in. Sorry, but treason is punishable by death, and you declared war on the US, as a US citizen that is treason.

As much as I do not like Obama, he made a good, and VERY hard choice on this one. That was 10x harder than to go after Bin Laden.

jmog;922059 wrote:I do not agree with Cain on everything, that is for sure. He is one of the only candidates (and that includes the current incumbant) who has real, actual ideas on how to fix things. Everyone else (save R.Paul) is just spitting out one liners and political rhetoric, that includes the current President as well.

However, I will give Obama credit for making that hard choice about using the drone to kill a terrorist who happens to be an American citizen.

1. He is an admitted terrorist who has stated his hatred for the US and has been involved in plans to attack the US. That is the definition of Treason.
2. Treason is the only crime described in our Constitution and is punishable by death.
3. Would be nearly impossible to go in and arrest him in Yemen.
4. This is no different than a murderer who is holding a hostage with a gun and a police sniper shoots the killer. That man would be a US citizen and got killed without a trial. This man was caught red handed, admitted his actions over and over again, and went to hide in a country we couldn't arrest him in. Sorry, but treason is punishable by death, and you declared war on the US, as a US citizen that is treason.

As much as I do not like Obama, he made a good, and VERY hard choice on this one. That was 10x harder than to go after Bin Laden.

This. I don't agree with Obama on anything that I can think of but the fact that he made the decision to take out the terrorist was great.

I laugh when people like Bill Maher brag about Obama getting Bin Laden though.

believer;922029 wrote:Sooooo....you're voting for Obama then?

Obama and conventional Republicans:

Have a chronic history of deficit spending.

Strain military budgets and resources by unnecessary military action overseas.

Have enacted stimulus packages while in the White House.

Have a history of infringing on state rights and personal liberties.

Meddle in the private sector unnecessarily.

Engage in unconstitutional military conflict.


It seems the Obama and conventional Republicans are less different than I'd like to see.

O-Trap;922136 wrote:Obama and conventional Republicans:

Have a chronic history of deficit spending.

Strain military budgets and resources by unnecessary military action overseas.

Have enacted stimulus packages while in the White House.

Have a history of infringing on state rights and personal liberties.

Meddle in the private sector unnecessarily.

Engage in unconstitutional military conflict.


It seems the Obama and conventional Republicans are less different than I'd like to see.

Besides the fact that that wasn't really my question (lol) I can't say that I disagree with you.