Republican candidates for 2012

• O-Trap

  

  IggyPride00;1057548 wrote:Do Rove and company not realize that allowing Willard to win the primary is basically ensuring 4 more years of BHO?

  
  And THIS is why I will not vote for Romney in the general election. A vote for Obama is a vote for Romney, and a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. They're both content with a large central government with widely stretching power. They both seem intent on policing other nations if we don't like what they do (regardless of whether or not what they do is an attack on our safety). They both were in support of NDAA. They both have a track record of supporting a government-funded healthcare system.
  
  Essentially this: Obama + big business connections + more general competence at accomplishing his goal = Romney
  
  Which of the two do you prefer: an overweight burglar with vertigo and clubbed feet, or an in-shape burglar with incredible balance and the ability to be silent while committing his crimes?
  
  Or do you not care and just vote for whoever has the "R" or the "D" next to their names?
  

  Cleveland Buck;1057720 wrote:You won't see it on Fox News, but Ron Paul introduced legislation today to repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process of law and effectively repeals the 5th and 6th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
  
  http://paul.house.gov/index.php?Itemid=1&catid=16%3Aspeeches&id=1941%3Astatement-introducing-repeal-of-sec-1021-of-national-defense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2012&option=com_content&view=article

  
  You'll see it. I guarantee it will be on. He's too involved in the primaries as a legitimate contender to not involve it. However, I doubt it gets substantial airtime.
  
  I'm curious how active the other candidates are in their current roles during all this? I mean, it's obvious Paul is still working as a Congressman, bringing legislation before the floor that would restore some freedom to citizens of the US that were taken away around New Year's. Are the others still playing as active a part in their positions (Newt notwithstanding)? I'm genuinely curious, as I don't know.
  

  BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote:This is really quite simple, but I'm failing somewhere!

  If anything, I think our failure to communicate is representative of how difficult it can be to hash these topics out at any level. No worries. As long as we maintain cool heads and try to explain ourselves as clearly as possible, we should at least come to an understanding of one another.
  

  BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote: The discussion was regarding costs to protect US vessels and no others. In terms of costs alone, if we are engaged in a "show of force" or protection of US vessels only in the Middle Eastern seas, then it doesn't cost any more to provide the same "show of force" or protection for other nations using the seas. Why you aks? Because we are already there protecting our own (and accountants don't swim well)! In other words, if we are there expending capital on sailors, submarines, drones, diesel, electricity, gasoline, uniforms, or whatever costs it takes to perform this task, then if other nations utilize our "show of force" while we are there, THEN there is no additional costs whatsoever to protect them vis-a-vis US vessels ONLY.

  Eureka! I now understand what you mean!
  
  The presence may not cost us any more, provided that multiple ships aren't being attacked at once. The ACTION, however, could. It does cost money to engage in battle. The weapons, ammunition, and vessels that are used (or replaced, as the case may be) cost money, and that doesn't take the risk of losing the lives of American soldiers into account, either. I know you know all this, of course. I don't mean to explain that so as to insult your intelligence. Just stating the facts as they are.
  
  If a foreign vessel is attacked there, and we save their vessel, that costs us money to replace the ammo, weaponry, and any damaged vessels of our own, and could cost us American lives as well ... lives of people who have been trained to protect OUR people and OUR nation.
  
  Now, if these other countries want military protection, I'm sure they could bring their own military to keep them safe. Or, if they don't have such a Navy, they could pay a soldier-for-hire company to keep them safe. Granted, that would cost THEM money ... but why is that a bad thing?
  

  BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote: Another viewpoint: If we are to maintain a presence in the Middle Eastern seas, then we expending taxpayer dollars. The fact that other "friendly" nations are in the same seas as us utilizing our protection does not add any costs.

  Until we use that protection to actively protect them.
  
  If we're over there to look mean and scary in an attempt for Iran to leave everyone the hell alone, fine. But that's not why we have active military over there, I don't think. It's to be there in case we need to USE them, and USING them incurs additional cost.
  

  BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote:There are many on here that say we shouldn't provide for other country's defenses and all I'm saying is that in this instance, the line cannot be drawn as our presence protects everyone.

  Presence never protects anyone. Actions do. I could have Chuck Norris standing watch at my front door, but if someone breaks in, and he doesn't round kick them in the face, his presence has accomplished nothing.
  

  BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote: Back to my main point regarding "non-interventionalism": If I (and millions of others) don't understand it, then it is indeed up to Dr. Paul to explain it!

  Here it is, in a nutshell: Other sovereign entities are allowed to do whatever they want until it is confirmed that they either have already harmed us, or if our action prevents the would-be attack DIRECTLY.
  
  In some ways, he has already shown it by voting to enter Afghanistan to take out Bin Laden. Now, he's upset, because that's not what we're doing there. We're rebuilding a nation.
  
  That's not our responsibility. Our responsibility was to kill the specific group of people who attacked us. That would be Al-Qaeda. Not Afghanistan as a whole. Not Iraq. Not Pakistan. Not even the Taliban.
  
  To use an analogy, assume we live in a country with no law (I say this to mean that every man is autonomous, and is responsible to no governing body ... just like two autonomous nation states - the U. S. and Iran, for example). However, I have a house rule that everyone in my house, including myself, has to follow. My rule says that I can protect my family. If Ronald McDonald (because that guy creeps me out) came to my house and killed my son, I could (and should) go kill him and anyone he plotted with. That rule also allows me to kill the creepy clown if I catch him in the ACT of trying to kill my son.
  
  It does NOT allow me to kill his son because I have strong cause to believe that he will raise his son to try to kill me, and his son has a gun.
  
  He and his family may hate me. He may perpetuate that hate for generations. He, his family, and the subsequent generations may also own guns. But until they ACT on a threat to my safety, I don't kill them.
  
  Damn, what a morbid analogy. Murder and clowns.
  

  BGFalcons82;1057854 wrote:The fact that CB says we should remain in the Middle East to protect Americans is, in fact, intervening in my opinion. For Dr. Paul to tell us he's for non-interventionalism and then profess to intervene where he sees fit does not hold water with his definition of non-interventionalism! He's playing games with words, and would thus, be unpredictable in the future. I get the distinct impression that he believes in not intervening unless he thinks it necessary ... which means he's just like all the others!! More importantly, I can't tell what his policy is as he sends confusing signals as I've described above and he wants to be Commander-In-Chief. To me, this is both scary and dangerous.

  It's his view of what is "necessary" that is the distinction. I'm convinced the former Salamander of the House would give the nod for military action against a nation that says they wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire. "Necessary" is subjective, so determining that it means only the strictest sense of what is in the Constitution ("defense") is to ensure that the Commander-in-Chief does not overstep his bounds.
  
  Be friends with anyone who is willing. Be cordial and respectful of nations who are not willing to be friendly, but also don't attack us. Be a complete son-of-a-bitch to anyone who does try to attack us.
• HitsRus

  

  Three words to those who think a Republican candidate other than Ron Paul would be "equal" to Obama.
  
  Keystone XL Pipeline.
• dwccrew

  

  FairwoodKing;1053172 wrote:He was also the worst president we ever had. Compared with Bush, Obama looks like Abraham Lincoln.

  I'd say Bush looks more like Lincoln than Obama, Obama looks more like Frederick Douglas.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Forget the Republicans, who else wouldn't exceed the pathetic performance these past few years? I'd vote for Hillary if she rocked the boat, which it appears she won't do. I'd rather have a flaming liberal in the WH who was diligent, experienced and competent than a rock-ribbed conservative that is aloof, inexperienced and incompetent. Unfortunately we have the worst of both worlds right now. I plan on voting for Romney, but if he doesn't win the primary I'll vote for anyone that opposes Obama and has a chance to win.
• IggyPride00

  

  I plan on voting for Romney

  Willard is like the worst of all worlds. A big government liberal who is a disciple/slave of crony capitalism with a finger in the wind approach to governing because he has no core moral beliefs (scary how that sentence alone could be used to describe Willard or BHO).
  
  If this country is really left with a choice between BHO and Willard we are so far up a creek without a paddle it doesn't matter who wins.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  ^^^ At least with Romney there is a level of competence, Obama can't even read a balance sheet. I doubt he's taken any class in any economics or mathematics discipline above the collegiate freshman level. And we all know about his business experience, or lack thereof. I seriously can't look at anyone in the eye that says they plan on voting for Obama this year, and most of the people we hang out with are Democrats from Cali and NY - even they admit that we have to get him out.
• buck

  http://drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
  newt's ex-wife gave a tell all interview to abc and will air thursday on nightline. this should be really intresting.
• O-Trap

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1058222 wrote:^^^ At least with Romney there is a level of competence, Obama can't even read a balance sheet. I doubt he's taken any class in any economics or mathematics discipline above the collegiate freshman level. And we all know about his business experience, or lack thereof. I seriously can't look at anyone in the eye that says they plan on voting for Obama this year, and most of the people we hang out with are Democrats from Cali and NY - even they admit that we have to get him out.

  Not sure why you'd want a crook to be competent. Wouldn't that just make him a better crook?
• IggyPride00

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1058222 wrote:^^^ At least with Romney there is a level of competence, Obama can't even read a balance sheet. I doubt he's taken any class in any economics or mathematics discipline above the collegiate freshman level. And we all know about his business experience, or lack thereof. I seriously can't look at anyone in the eye that says they plan on voting for Obama this year, and most of the people we hang out with are Democrats from Cali and NY - even they admit that we have to get him out.

  That is why it is amazing to me that the Republican party didn't use this as the year to finally get a real Conservative in the race rather than a moderate like last time with McCain.
  
  If ever there was a year they could have run a real Conservative this was it, as there are times I think the local dog catcher could beat BHO given the way things stand.
  
  Then again this is shaping up a lot like 04 when it seemed unimaginable Bush would win re-election given how unpopular he was and how unpopular the war had gotten.
  
  The Democrats though nominated a Massachusetts liberal who was stiff/wooden, wealthy, out of touch, aloof, and a major flip flopper who seemed bullet proof because of his war record.
  
  We saw how well that worked.
  
  Willard will be the Kerry of this election cycle. The Massachusetts liberal running against an unpopular President who on paper seems like a perfect candidate. Just as the Republicans ended up using Kerry's perceived greatest strength against him (his war record) BHO and crew will use Romney's perceived greatest strength against him (his supposed economic knowledge) to tar and feather him.
  
  The parallels to what we saw in 04 and how 12 is shaping up are amazing.
• majorspark

  

  Astute political analisys Iggy. You make a lot more sense than what Dick Morris is shoveling. And the toe sucker is making buku bucks shoveling it. If there were ever an election that a true conservative could educate the masses and get the nomination this is definitely one. Where can I get my Willard 2012 bumper sticker?
• majorspark

  

  buck;1058232 wrote:http://drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
  newt's ex-wife gave a tell all interview to abc and will air thursday on nightline. this should be really intresting.

  Which one?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "The parallels to what we saw in 04 and how 12 is shaping up are amazing."
  
  I can see some, but in 04 when 5% unemployment and rising house prices were considered an economic failure of W (at least by the mainstream media), how do you think people will vote when unemployment is at 8.5 (and closer to 20% by most measurable accounts) and real estate is still in a free fall with no end in sight?
  
  People might dislike an unpopular war, but how motivated are they to vote? When people have seen their home values collapse, the prospects for employment opportunities for their children (if not themselves) destroyed, and an aloof, sheltered and coddled political class.....then they will vote.
  
  Do you think Obama can carry Virginia again (NO WAY), or Ohio? Forget the media and the concentration on the OWS losers, the people that have a stake will vote, will talk to their friends and co-workers about voting and will show up in November. This is the most important election in my lifetime. We're voting absentee (in Virginia) but are doing what we can here. We don't know a single Obama voter...and again we're ex-pats where the typical American is a DEM. Everyone hates him.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1058357 wrote:"The parallels to what we saw in 04 and how 12 is shaping up are amazing."
  
  I can see some, but in 04 when 5% unemployment and rising house prices were considered an economic failure of W (at least by the mainstream media), how do you think people will vote when unemployment is at 8.5 (and closer to 20% by most measurable accounts) and real estate is still in a free fall with no end in sight?
  
  People might dislike an unpopular war, but how motivated are they to vote? When people have seen their home values collapse, the prospects for employment opportunities for their children (if not themselves) destroyed, and an aloof, sheltered and coddled political class.....then they will vote.
  
  Do you think Obama can carry Virginia again (NO WAY), or Ohio? Forget the media and the concentration on the OWS losers, the people that have a stake will vote, will talk to their friends and co-workers about voting and will show up in November. This is the most important election in my lifetime. We're voting absentee (in Virginia) but are doing what we can here. We don't know a single Obama voter...and again we're ex-pats where the typical American is a DEM. Everyone hates him.

  This.
  
  Honestly anyone who thinks that Romney=Obama is a fucking moron whose bias is too great for his own good.
• Footwedge

  Cleveland Buck;1057365 wrote:What do you mean no one else has tried it? The country was founded on those principles. No one has tried it recently because they get a lot of lobby money from the military contractors and AIPAC and the bankers that make billions on endless wars. And the Washington Times had a poll yesterday that 46% of Republican primary voters are non-interventionist, which is remarkable considering how the media distorts that view. That doesn't include Democrats, so say what, 60-70% of the country feels that way? Maybe more? The majority of Americans are sick and tired of the warmongering and the empire when we are bankrupt.

  Those 46% are obviously anti-American...hate this country...and root for the terrorists to win. What really annoys me regarding some posters here...they claim..."Well I'm conservative...and because I'm conservative...I must be hawkish on all of our wars going on."
  
  Can't people reason issues out...without some fatman on the AM dial dictating to them what to think?
  
  On a side note, I read the opinion page in the USA Today....with none other than John Bolton...yet another super chickenhawk...who dodged Vietnam....calling Obama a pu$$y today for not bombing Iran.
  
  What a guy!!
  
  Yes folks...there are still piles and piles of people who actually think that way.
  
  People like Bolton and all the rest of these draft dodgers, should have an IED stuffed up their ass.
• HitsRus

  

  I disagree that this is shaping up like 2004. Kerry was an east coast ultra liberal, and his nomination was pandering to their base as they thought George Bush was so easily beatable. Of course, the middle part of this country wasn't going to buy that. The only way BHO wins is if the R's nominate an ultra conservative (or a libertarian). That is not going to be bought on the coasts, and you are going to need a few of those states to win.
  
  Book this: America is moderate. The silent majority lives. America is sick of the political gridlock in Washington. That is why Romney continues to win despite the lack of excitment about his candidacy.
• IggyPride00

  

  [video=youtube;uHapuEmt2xw][/video]
• bases_loaded

  

  Hermain Cain takes a lead...media destroys him.
  
  Rick Perry takes a lead....media destroys him.
  
  Newt takes a lead...media destroys him, but Newt rebounds and inches closer...media prepares to drop a nuke.
  
  It's clear who the media/repub party wants here.
• wkfan

  bases_loaded;1058523 wrote:It's clear who the media wants here.

  And none of them have an (R) behind their name.
• bases_loaded

  

  Perry dropping out today.
• sleeper

  

  bases_loaded;1058569 wrote:Perry dropping out today.

  Good, maybe they'll give Paul more debate time tonight. It seems every question is given to Romney.
• WebFire

  sleeper;1058591 wrote:Good, maybe they'll give Paul more debate time tonight. It seems every question is given to Romney.

  Probably just more time for Mitt.
• sleeper

  

  WebFire;1058599 wrote:Probably just more time for Mitt.

  I have to admit, I enjoy watching Romney answer debate questions. If you listen closely, you'll notice he always starts out affirming or denying something, and then he'll pause and depending on the crowds reaction he'll edit his answer accordingly. The guy is the definition of rhetoric, he doesn't have any original thoughts.
• QuakerOats

  Manhattan Buckeye;1058357 wrote:"The parallels to what we saw in 04 and how 12 is shaping up are amazing."
  
  I can see some, but in 04 when 5% unemployment and rising house prices were considered an economic failure of W (at least by the mainstream media), how do you think people will vote when unemployment is at 8.5 (and closer to 20% by most measurable accounts) and real estate is still in a free fall with no end in sight?
  
  People might dislike an unpopular war, but how motivated are they to vote? When people have seen their home values collapse, the prospects for employment opportunities for their children (if not themselves) destroyed, and an aloof, sheltered and coddled political class.....then they will vote.
  
  Do you think Obama can carry Virginia again (NO WAY), or Ohio? Forget the media and the concentration on the OWS losers, the people that have a stake will vote, will talk to their friends and co-workers about voting and will show up in November. This is the most important election in my lifetime. We're voting absentee (in Virginia) but are doing what we can here. We don't know a single Obama voter...and again we're ex-pats where the typical American is a DEM. Everyone hates him.

  
  Post of the week. Get a beer.
• Skyhook79

  

  sleeper;1058591 wrote:Good, maybe they'll give Paul more debate time tonight. It seems every question is given to Romney.

  I agree. It will help speed up the process of Paul dropping out the more he speaks.
• sleeper

  

  Skyhook79;1058645 wrote:I agree. It will help speed up the process of Paul dropping out the more he speaks.

  If Paul drops out, we are f'd. I hope he runs third party.