That is true. A vote for anyone but Paul is a vote for Obama. Congratulations.

Glenn Beck is a clown, but even he was saying the other day that if you support Newt over Obama, it must be because of Obama's race, because that and a couple hundred pounds is the only difference between the two of them.

BGFalcons82;1012730 wrote:And he will be assisted in losing as you and the other Ronulans pull the good doctor's lever in November, 2012. Congrats for re-electing the worst President of all time.

What makes Newt a good choice?

[video=youtube;hRdqGKA782A][/video]

Cleveland Buck;1012742 wrote:That is true. A vote for anyone but Paul is a vote for Obama. Congratulations.

Yeah, you've made me reconsider. Since my guy decided to wait until 2016, if there is a USA in 5 years, I think I'll just sit out 2012....or maybe write him in this year. I can't bend one centimeter on my principles, so I'll pass. I feel so goooooood about doing this that I'll convince my conservative brethren that 4 more years of hellfire is much better than compromising myself.

BGFalcons82;1012792 wrote:Yeah, you've made me reconsider. Since my guy decided to wait until 2016, if there is a USA in 5 years, I think I'll just sit out 2012....or maybe write him in this year. I can't bend one centimeter on my principles, so I'll pass. I feel so goooooood about doing this that I'll convince my conservative brethren that 4 more years of hellfire is much better than compromising myself.

Yeah, Gingrich and Romney are completely different than Obama.

Cleveland Buck;1012797 wrote:Yeah, Gingrich and Romney are completely different than Obama.

I never said that. I believe 100% in my guy and since he's out, I'm not going to vote for something I can't believe in 100%, so I won't be voting for Romney nor Gingrich. I just pray that there is an election in 2016. Either that or a revolution, which is the ultimate destination in this class war.

BGFalcons82;1012804 wrote:I never said that. I believe 100% in my guy and since he's out, I'm not going to vote for something I can't believe in 100%, so I won't be voting for Romney nor Gingrich. I just pray that there is an election in 2016. Either that or a revolution, which is the ultimate destination in this class war.

Who was your guy?

ccrunner609;1012805 wrote:No way....Obama wil lose to anyone they put up. Newt would not only beat him in a debate....he would embarras him. Obama is going to stand there and tell you he saved us from a depression and lie about the unemployment rate and Newt is gonna set him straight.

I doubt it.
Newt has his moments of greatness, but mainly he goes a little wacky sometimes, ie. the Palestinian quote, and the whole Oh my God fear an EMP quote.

The only one I really like is Huntsman, all the others are crazy, stupid, or just incompetent and have no policy depth.

Huntsman I like.

Yea, I'm not totally on board with some of his domestic policies, but he gets it in terms of foreign policy, Huntsman is cerebral towards foreign policy, and not linked to ideology like the other candidates.

He is really the only one I could vote for. All the others are just crazy.

Newt's all Palestinians are terrorists thing and not a real people was just crazy, Not even the right wing in Israel think that.
And his EMP is going to kill millions of Americans is total Bullshit.
The odds of that happening are slimmer than all out nuclear war.

I'll also say all the candidates have failed at how they would really deal with the defense budget. How would they cut it, where and how would they deal with the economic impact of Defense budget cuts, which are due to occur in January 2013, when they would take office.

I Wear Pants;1012709 wrote:Newt would and should lose a general election.

If unemployment is still around 9 next November, a hamster would beat Obama.

Newt, with his many MANY flaws, is a MUCH better debater and smarter politician/historian than Obama. He would mop the floor with Obama in a debate...and I can't stand Newt, I would much rather have Paul.

Although, Newt is better than Romney.

I disagree with that.

ccrunner609;1013050 wrote:^^^^THrow them stones

Boy that post has substance.

Here's the bottom-line:

Herman Cain was the best of overall candidate. The Repub establishment didn't accept him and found a way to get him out of the way. Too bad really. I think he would have been a good prez.

Ron Paul is the true conservative choice, but the Repub establishment and the MSM media will never allow him to be the Repub nominee. Paul will once again run as a third party candidate, suck votes away from the eventual Repub nominee, and assist the failure that is BHO in running a tighter race than he deserves.

Mitt Romney is Obama-lite and is, unfortunately, the most electable choice of all the Repub candidates.

Newt Gingrich is a paradox. I believe him to be an intelligent man who would kill BHO in the debates, but his poor personal choices and flip flopping hypocrisies on many issues will be his undoing.

Suffice it to say that in a nation of 313 million people, this is the "best" the Repubs can come up with in a time when the party should be able to run Bozo the Clown and clean Obama's clock.

If Cain was the best, then the Repubs were screwed to begin with.

Cain was a joke candidate. Romney = Obama. Gingrich = Obama with Roid Rage. Ron Paul is the only conservative. It is just taking longer for him to gain traction because people have been indoctrinated over the years to believe that the government will provide you a job or a check or food or cell phones or whatever you want, or the government will protect you from terrorists if you just give up some of your rights, or that if we aren't the policeman of the world we will be relentlessly attacked by the evil brown skinned scum. That kind of misinformation is hard to fight, but it is happening slowly but surely.

I don't think Paul would run third party unless he got screwed out of the nomination by some kind of fraud, which is certainly possible. I wish he would run third party if he loses, but I don't think he will. Whether he runs or not, if he isn't the GOP nominee they won't beat Obama. Obviously some of Paul's soft support would support whoever the nominee is, but the 10% or so of hardcore Paul supporters won't support Gingrich or Romney no matter what. Voting for one of them is wasting your vote, because they aren't different from Obama. They will vote for the Libertarian or write in Paul or just not vote.

I Wear Pants;1012839 wrote:Who was your guy?

Please revisit post #2342.

BGFalcons82;1013365 wrote:Please revisit post #2342.

Is there a faster way of finding that than looking through all the pages? I don't have that sort of work ethic.

I've said it before but this shit is really starting to remind me of 2004.

Chris Christie is his guy. He isn't quite as liberal as Newt and Mitt, but I wouldn't be able to support him. He favors gun control, subsidies, cronyism, big government solutions to education and energy, and endless wars. I think he was smart enough to keep his mouth shut about the bank bailouts though, because even though I know he supports them, I can't find anything he said about it.

Cleveland Buck;1013555 wrote:Chris Christie is his guy. He isn't quite as liberal as Newt and Mitt, but I wouldn't be able to support him. He favors gun control, subsidies, cronyism, big government solutions to education and energy, and endless wars. I think he was smart enough to keep his mouth shut about the bank bailouts though, because even though I know he supports them, I can't find anything he said about it.

Yep, you found the post. Good detective work

Is it possible that America isn't quite ready for a Libertarian? While I hold a majority of their views, I can't get on board with isolationism and drug legalization. I would venture to say a lot of Americans think this way as well.

I know the Ronulans are passionate, but their frenzy may just keep the resident Marxist in charge for 4 more years of complete failure and misery.

BGFalcons82;1013574 wrote:Yep, you found the post. Good detective work

Is it possible that America isn't quite ready for a Libertarian? While I hold a majority of their views, I can't get on board with isolationism and drug legalization. I would venture to say a lot of Americans think this way as well.

I know the Ronulans are passionate, but their frenzy may just keep the resident Marxist in charge for 4 more years of complete failure and misery.

I won't argue why it isn't isolationism here. I do have to ask whether you have any evidence based reasons that you think we should continue to prosecute drug use?

BGFalcons82;1013574 wrote:Yep, you found the post. Good detective work

Is it possible that America isn't quite ready for a Libertarian? While I hold a majority of their views, I can't get on board with isolationism and drug legalization. I would venture to say a lot of Americans think this way as well.

I know the Ronulans are passionate, but their frenzy may just keep the resident Marxist in charge for 4 more years of complete failure and misery.

I didn't look for the post, I just remember you talking about him. And if drug legalization and isolationism are your big concerns, then you should just jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon.

Isolationism is slapping tariffs on imports, no trade, not working with any other government for anything. It is a sad state of affairs when people believe that you are an isolationist if you don't think we should be picking winners in foreign elections, propping up dictators that will follow orders, spreading millions of U.S. troops throughout the world on hundreds and hundreds of bases, and propping up the European welfare state by being their defense. That sounds like good sense to me, and it has nothing to do with isolationism.

And while Ron Paul may personally believe that making drugs illegal is a pointless act, he certainly wouldn't override state laws to make it legal. Federally decriminalizing drugs does not make them legal, and he knows better than anyone that the federal government has no right to tell states what to do about their drug laws.

Cleveland Buck;1013753 wrote:I didn't look for the post, I just remember you talking about him. And if drug legalization and isolationism are your big concerns, then you should just jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon.

Isolationism is slapping tariffs on imports, no trade, not working with any other government for anything. It is a sad state of affairs when people believe that you are an isolationist if you don't think we should be picking winners in foreign elections, propping up dictators that will follow orders, spreading millions of U.S. troops throughout the world on hundreds and hundreds of bases, and propping up the European welfare state by being their defense. That sounds like good sense to me, and it has nothing to do with isolationism.

And while Ron Paul may personally believe that making drugs illegal is a pointless act, he certainly wouldn't override state laws to make it legal. Federally decriminalizing drugs does not make them legal, and he knows better than anyone that the federal government has no right to tell states what to do about their drug laws.

These are the hills Dr. Paul must climb. I understand what you've written, but the message needs to get out to millions of voters. For many, isolationism is defined exactly as you wrote. Our greatest generation lived through an isolationist society and look what happened on 12-7-1941. This is what is remembered, not some wonkish dissertation about "propping up dictators" and "picking winners". If Dr. Paul could somehow describe how he would meld budget savings, remaining active (not passive) in world affairs, and NOT gut the military to a point where all China has to do is show up on our beaches in order to claim what they own, then he has a chance. To the multitudes, he is cast as an isolationist and he needs to meet that head-on, or else lose. If he has trouble telling it to me, then how can he convince tens of millions of voters?

As far as drug legalization, I believe most Americans would go along with legalizing Mary-Jane. It would also supplant tobacco as a cash-cow for Uncle Sam and the states. Where Libertarians get sideways with Americans is their, "if it doesn't bother me, why is it a crime what someone else does with their lives" mantra regarding more high-powered drugs. How many thefts/break-ins/murders are directly tied to junkies wanting their fix or to feed someone else's addiction? Yeah...it doesn't bother anyone until it comes crashing through their front window in the form of a 9 millimeter sphere. And lest we not forget, the current law-of-the-land is that everyone is responsible for carrying their own healthcare (or have liberties removed), so having junkies get wasted and repaired on the government dime with no punishment is a drain on everyone. Which is in direct violation of the Libertarian drug creed. Even if ObamaKare is removed, then all Americans would still foot the bill for junkies' largesse with their needles and spoons.

What is the answer? To me, incarceration doesn't seem to be it. Neither does letting people destroy their lives, especially since other's (children, parents, siblings, spouses) lives depend on the sobriety of their loved ones. There has to be an answer somewhere in-between. Maybe it's a combination of rehab, house-arrest, drug testing, and/or fines. I will agree with IWP that the war on drugs is a loser, but we just can't do the Corso and say, F it, we won't even try. I don't want to go down in history labeled as the nation of hopped up drug addicts or "Land of the free, home of the Dopes."