Woodruff wrote: Just don't make it Bachmann...that's REALLY all I ask.
Just heard an interview about her. Cannot agree more! We thought Pallin was bad. Bachmann will literally mean the end of america!
paranoid much? Bachmann would fix this country.
I thought you liked the Constitution? Michelle Bachmann does NOT like the Constitution, based on her own statements. Bachmann would do her absolutely best to try to eliminate freedom in this nation, without question.
Don't worry, it's Ron Paul's time.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Woodruff wrote: Just don't make it Bachmann...that's REALLY all I ask.
Just heard an interview about her. Cannot agree more! We thought Pallin was bad. Bachmann will literally mean the end of america!
paranoid much? Bachmann would fix this country.
I thought you liked the Constitution? Michelle Bachmann does NOT like the Constitution, based on her own statements. Bachmann would do her absolutely best to try to eliminate freedom in this nation, without question.
Don't worry, it's Ron Paul's time.
I would be very happy to see him on the Republican (or Democratic) ticket. He's better than anything either party has got. Unfortunately, I don't think the powers-that-be will allow that to happen. Equally unfortunately, I don't believe he will be able to rally enough support as an Independent simply because of the "Independent" label (which is stupid, but it's the American public after all, where "winning" is more important than being smart).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:
I would be very happy to see him on the Republican (or Democratic) ticket. He's better than anything either party has got. Unfortunately, I don't think the powers-that-be will allow that to happen. Equally unfortunately, I don't believe he will be able to rally enough support as an Independent simply because of the "Independent" label (which is stupid, but it's the American public after all, where "winning" is more important than being smart).
Ron Paul could not conceivably exist on the Democratic ticket. Not that he makes too much sense as a Republican, but about 85% of his platform is diametrically opposed to core Dem policies. Not being judgmental, I love Paul's views on privacy and some of what he thinks about what the US's role in the world ought to be, but he would fit about as well on the Democratic ticket as comrade Kucinich would fit on the repub ticket.
Woodruff wrote:
I would be very happy to see him on the Republican (or Democratic) ticket. He's better than anything either party has got. Unfortunately, I don't think the powers-that-be will allow that to happen. Equally unfortunately, I don't believe he will be able to rally enough support as an Independent simply because of the "Independent" label (which is stupid, but it's the American public after all, where "winning" is more important than being smart).
Ron Paul could not conceivably exist on the Democratic ticket. Not that he makes too much sense as a Republican, but about 85% of his platform is diametrically opposed to core Dem policies.
I recognize that. My point was simply that I would like to see him as a viable candidate, but I don't believe he will be.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:yes yes I know. I just presumed all yall knew that loopholes would be closed and deductions would no longer be tax deductable amongst many other things. Isn't that revenue increases?
Yes. Fair point.
Woodruff wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I think he's a shoo-in anyway because the Republican nominee is going to suck ass.
I really honestly hate to hear that, because I do agree. I find myself liking Mitt Romney, and I don't really like Mitt Romney. And it annoys the shit out of me because I sure don't like Obama, but the Democrats got NOBODY else. Just don't make it Bachmann...that's REALLY all I ask.
I'm not sure how I feel about Bachmann yet (probably because I don't think she'll win the nomination). I actually like President Obama in theory (i.e. he said good stuff during the last election), but in practice he's not my candidate in 2012. I think Romney will win the nomination, depending upon what people feel about Rick Perry. Perry is pretty wild, but he's also as charismatic as Romney.
spurgistan wrote:Ron Paul could not conceivably exist on the Democratic ticket. Not that he makes too much sense as a Republican, but about 85% of his platform is diametrically opposed to core Dem policies. Not being judgmental, I love Paul's views on privacy and some of what he thinks about what the US's role in the world ought to be, but he would fit about as well on the Democratic ticket as comrade Kucinich would fit on the repub ticket.
Agreed. If you're economically Democrat, you can't vote for Ron Paul. Further evidence we need multiple parties. I was shocked that Kucinich spoke at Obama's nomination ceremony (or whatever it's called). Kucinich should form his own party. The Pauls should form their own party (or join the Libertarians).
"To understand her, you have to understand the movement that she came out of," Lizza tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "Her early ideological roots were formed by opposition to abortion ... and she's always been concerned with social issues, the culture war issues. ... She takes her Christianity very seriously. She comes out of a religious evangelical conservative movement that is very much concerned with developing a biblical worldview and applying it to all corners of one's life."
The first time Bachmann got involved in politics was in 1993, when she founded a publicly funded charter school in Stillwater, Minn., with some other parents.
"They signed a charter saying they were not allowed in any way to include a religious agenda at this school and they very quickly violated that and built the school around a Christian sectarian agenda to the point where parents ... became very alarmed." says Lizza. "The school district stepped in and warned them that they were going to lose their charter, and eventually Bachmann and another person who were spearheading this were forced off the board and forced off the leadership of that school."
"For a number of years, Michele Bachmann's personal website had a list of books she recommended people read. It was called 'Michelle's must-read list.' I was looking over the list and noticed this biography of Lee by Wilkins. never heard of Wilkins and started looking at who he was. And frankly couldn't believe that she was recommending this book."
"Wilkins has combined a Christian conservatism with neo-confederate views and developed what is known as the theological war thesis. This is an idea that says the best way to understand the Civil War is to see it in religious terms, and [that] the South was an Orthodox Christian nation attacked by the godless North and that what was really lost after the Civil War was one of the pinnacles of Christian society. This insane view of the Civil War has been successfully injected into some of the Christian home-schooling movement curriculums with the help of [Wilkins]. My guess is this is how she encountered the guy at some point. ... She recommended this book on her website for a number of years. It is an objectively pro-slavery book and one of the most startling things I learned about her in this piece.
One of the PRIMARY reasons the federal government is forbidden from establishing ANY religion is precisely so that zealots cannot force THEIR view of Christianity or any other religion onto us. Make no mistake, the tide of religious popularity changes. You may be quite happy with religious rules instituted today, but that is a sword that can as easily be turned against you as for you.. whatever your beliefs. HIstory shows us this.
So apparently Ron Paul won the debate last night (according to this Fox News poll). I found this link on Slate, but could not find it on Fox's website (there is discussion that Fox purposefully pulled it).
PLAYER57832 wrote:I would take Ron Paul over Michelle Bachman (sp?) any day!
Oh, without question. That's an easy choice.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
So apparently Ron Paul won the debate last night (according to this Fox News poll). I found this link on Slate, but could not find it on Fox's website (there is discussion that Fox purposefully pulled it).
A poll which was removed from FOX news, something about them not liking the way it turned out. I'm sure O'rielly will make a comment monday about how all the tenny boppers voted 100 times each
Strife wrote:I hereby state Martin Ronne has inappropriately touched me. I would like to file charges against this sick bastard and expect he be sent to prison.
So apparently Ron Paul won the debate last night (according to this Fox News poll). I found this link on Slate, but could not find it on Fox's website (there is discussion that Fox purposefully pulled it).
A poll which was removed from FOX news, something about them not liking the way it turned out. I'm sure O'rielly will make a comment monday about how all the tenny boppers voted 100 times each
i doubt it. the polls will be completely ignored.
gandhi wrote:First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
the mainstream media are very cleverly trying to stay in the first stage of this progression.
laughter means acknowledgement, and fighting means taking ron paul seriously. you won't see that until paul wins the ames straw poll/emerges as a clear frontrunner, if even then.
notice how romney tries not to engage the other republican hopefuls in serious debate? he goes after obama instead. it's the exact same principle.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
gandhi wrote:First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
the mainstream media are very cleverly trying to stay in the first stage of this progression.
laughter means acknowledgement, and fighting means taking ron paul seriously. you won't see that until paul wins the ames straw poll/emerges as a clear frontrunner, if even then.
IF Paul emerges as a clear frontrunner. Right now, Bachmann (God help us) seems to be the frontrunner in Iowa.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
gandhi wrote:First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
the mainstream media are very cleverly trying to stay in the first stage of this progression.
laughter means acknowledgement, and fighting means taking ron paul seriously. you won't see that until paul wins the ames straw poll/emerges as a clear frontrunner, if even then.
IF Paul emerges as a clear frontrunner. Right now, Bachmann (God help us) seems to be the frontrunner in Iowa.
gandhi wrote:First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
the mainstream media are very cleverly trying to stay in the first stage of this progression.
laughter means acknowledgement, and fighting means taking ron paul seriously. you won't see that until paul wins the ames straw poll/emerges as a clear frontrunner, if even then.
IF Paul emerges as a clear frontrunner. Right now, Bachmann (God help us) seems to be the frontrunner in Iowa.
That might be one way to get Obama re-elected.
she won't get it. God will help protect us from the woman who believes in god.
john9blue wrote:if bachmann gets the nomination then i'll probably just vote third party again... sigh lol
Whatever you do DO NOT do that.. you will just weaken any opposition. (unless you really don't care whether its Obama or Bachman).
I don't agree, necessarily. There are times when voting third party, even if it's doomed to failure, is worthy of making a statement. For instance, if there looks to be a very significant-but-still-losing voting block for the third party individual. That very well may happen with Ron Paul this coming election. It's worthy because it will serve as a bit of a wakeup call to others but even more importantly, it could lead to that individual's third party becoming more viable in the following election.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
the only reason i would not vote third party is if i was in a close state and my vote actually mattered. i voted third party in 2008 because i was an illinois resident and my vote would not have affected the outcome of that particular state. it was a vote for dissatisfaction of the current two-party system.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:if bachmann gets the nomination then i'll probably just vote third party again... sigh lol
Whatever you do DO NOT do that.. you will just weaken any opposition. (unless you really don't care whether its Obama or Bachman).
I don't agree, necessarily. There are times when voting third party, even if it's doomed to failure, is worthy of making a statement. For instance, if there looks to be a very significant-but-still-losing voting block for the third party individual. That very well may happen with Ron Paul this coming election. It's worthy because it will serve as a bit of a wakeup call to others but even more importantly, it could lead to that individual's third party becoming more viable in the following election.
I think a better statement is made by working locally and then out. Only when enough localities are willing to look at alternatives will the alternative rise to the top. That is how Vermont elected a socialist.. not that I agree with him. ( I don't know anything about him other than that label.)
Nobunaga wrote:... I voted 3rd party out of principle last election (I mean, McCain/Palin?!).
... But I won't do it again.
...
Yeah I think a lot of Republicans had to plug their nose when they voted for Mccain.
Not in 2012. We will have a candidate who will balance the budget, and we will give him/her enough senators and twice as many congresspersons in the house to get er dun.
Nobunaga wrote:... I voted 3rd party out of principle last election (I mean, McCain/Palin?!).
... But I won't do it again.
...
Yeah I think a lot of Republicans had to plug their nose when they voted for Mccain.
Not in 2012. We will have a candidate who will balance the budget, and we will give him/her enough senators and twice as many congresspersons in the house to get er dun.
... Don't count on it, Phat. Republicans in office are still, as a percentage at lest, very much out of touch with the public. Would it surprise you to see another McCain-like spineless "moderate" put up front? It would not surprise me at all. I mean, the national media would certainly support this again, much as they now support Ron Paul, knowing full well he would hand the election to Obama with a fat ribbon tied to it.
... Also, the embedded Repubs still fear seeming "extreme". (A Constitutional position is now an extreme position... but I'm sure you noticed).
