Ohio Chatter DEV

BGFalcons82

From Scott Rasmussen:

In potential 2012 match-ups, it’s Obama 46% and Romney at 43%. If Gingrich is the GOP opponent, the president leads 48% to 41%. These tracking poll numbers are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Rick Santorum trails the president by eight points, 48% to 40%. Ron Paul trails by ten, 47% to 37%. Numbers for Santorum and Paul are being updated every week.

Cleveland Buck

RCP Average:

Obama 47, Romney 45 Obama +2
Obama 47, Paul 42 Obama +5
Obama 50, Santorum 40 Obama +10
Obama 51, Gingrich 40 Obama +11

sleeper

If Paul isn't the nominee, and after whatever clown they put up there loses to Obama, we'll never hear the end of it as they will blame Ron Paul and his supporters.

Elect Ron Paul, or elect Obama. Paul supporters hold the ultimate trump card.

fish82

O-Trap;1064926 wrote:Actually, the crux of my point is that I've never heard of a single instance of complaint. THAT is what seems to indicate that the contact is not unwanted. Not just that they know it going in.

Not to mention that one is 100% recreational and that the contact is not a mandated requirement by governmental authority for anyone on the dance floor.

I've heard of several. Are they common? No...but that comes from knowing the environment going in, not unlike the checkpoint, or knowing your tailor is going to brush your junk as he measures your inseam. Your second statement clearly contradicts your earlier assertion that "unwanted contact is unwanted contact." Engaging in a "recreational" activity has zero to do with it, at least if you're going to be consistent in your positions.

O-Trap;1064926 wrote:Too, remember that it isn't as though these are highly trained professionals. The standards for becoming a member of the TSA are surprisingly low. While one might like to think they would be professional, the entrance requirements for the job broaden the field, meaning it's a rather mixed bag of individuals who could be.checking your wife's ta-tas to make sure they're not padded with a C4 bra and seem to enjoy it a little too much.

What would you prefer the standards to be? Of the bazillion people screened each day, the complaints of people being actually groped I can count on one hand. They are professional, contrite and polite. They obviously hate doing it as much as we hate having it done. The notion that they're all out there getting off on it is stupid.

If you want to protest the TSA...I'll gladly join you if the crux is that all this is a waste of time/resources and doesn't make us safer. But this whole "molestation" angle is just retarded. Sorry.

Again, I've gone through at least 3-4 checkpoints a week all over the country the past year...so it's just my $0.02.

jhay78

fish82;1065123 wrote:If you want to protest the TSA...I'll gladly join you if the crux is that all this is a waste of time/resources and doesn't make us safer. But this whole "molestation" angle is just retarded. Sorry.

I think we can all agree on that. I don't have a problem with Rand Paul's decision to point out the slippery slope of the TSA potentially abusing its power. My main beef is the random part of the searches- i.e., the 80-year old grandma has as much chance of getting groped as the 27-year old who's been to Yemen three times the past year and exhibits nervous behavior when engaged in eye-to-eye conversation (Rand Paul even made that point on Hannity's radio show the other day).

Reminds me of the scene on Airplane, when the screeners let through a dude decked out in full military gear, weapons, and ammunition, and then tackle little old granny when she tries to go through. They were predicting the future TSA about 30 years before the fact.

O-Trap

fish82;1065123 wrote:I've heard of several. Are they common? No...but that comes from knowing the environment going in, not unlike the checkpoint, or knowing your tailor is going to brush your junk as he measures your inseam. Your second statement clearly contradicts your earlier assertion that "unwanted contact is unwanted contact." Engaging in a "recreational" activity has zero to do with it, at least if you're going to be consistent in your positions.

I suppose my assertion that it is recreational implies that the contact is, for many, the point of going. I led with "not to mention" in hopes of making clear that that statement was not why it is wrong, but why it is silly.

In just the same way, unwanted contact is unwanted contact, whether from a fellow citizen or a government employee. I'll avoid rabbit trails as best I can in order to be clearer (or at least try

).

Ultimately, if a private business owner wishes to refuse service to anyone willing or unwilling to do or endure something, I'm not as opposed, because I believe it to be the right of a private entity. Same with a household.

I certainly draw the line at the central government telling a private entity that it is not allowed to serve or sell to someone unless they submit to an invasion of their own rights.

fish82;1065123 wrote: What would you prefer the standards to be? Of the bazillion people screened each day, the complaints of people being actually groped I can count on one hand.

I'm sure you'd agree that the volume doesn't matter. For example, if we were to apply this to the Second Amendment, I would equally suggest that just because a bazillion people might be willing to give up their arms out of some felt sense of safety, the few who wish to keep theirs should be permitted to do so.

fish82;1065123 wrote:They are professional, contrite and polite. They obviously hate doing it as much as we hate having it done. The notion that they're all out there getting off on it is stupid.

Oh, I'd never suggest they were all out there getting off, though there have indeed been isolated examples of inappropriate behavior stemming from what is already invasive. Rest assured that I'm not saying they're all looking to get their rocks off by groping the next Dolly Parton to come through. I applied to be one at one time, and that certainly wasn't my intent.

fish82;1065123 wrote: If you want to protest the TSA...I'll gladly join you if the crux is that all this is a waste of time/resources and doesn't make us safer.

I certainly would be on board with this, as I believe it to be true, as well. However, even if it cost nothing, I would suggest that it would be wrong.

fish82;1065123 wrote:But this whole "molestation" angle is just retarded. Sorry.

I suppose if it isn't unwelcome, then there is technically no foul. Sort of like authorities not needing a warrant to search a home if given expressed permission by the home owner to do so.

However, for those who would object to it, reason for which is irrelevant, they should not be told that a third-party entity (the airline) is not allowed to accept my patronage because I did not consent to waiving a personal right. And I would still maintain that unwanted contact should be sexual misconduct grounds.

fish82;1065123 wrote: Again, I've gone through at least 3-4 checkpoints a week all over the country the past year...so it's just my $0.02.

I don't blame you for not caring. I used to do it about twice a week, and I never much cared about the body thing either. Doesn't mean I think don't think I have the right to refuse it. Just means I choose not to exercise that right.

Little Danny

majorspark;1064930 wrote:The wicked witch of the west says she has the goods on Newt. Its been a nice run for ya Newt, time to hand the keys back to Willard and go back to peddling influence.

Over/under he banged her?

fish82

Little Danny;1065262 wrote:Over/under he banged her?

Cool. That picture is now stuck in my head for the afternoon.

majorspark

Little Danny;1065262 wrote:Over/under he banged her?

Who knows what happened next.

Cleveland Buck

Zombaypirate

Cleveland Buck;1065423 wrote:

The guy is a liberal piece of crap. The stupid will buy into his "new" way of thinking though.

believer

Zombaypirate;1065679 wrote:The guy is a liberal piece of crap. The stupid will buy into his "new" way of thinking though.

True. We now enjoy an Obama White House so anything's possible.

dwccrew

HitsRus;1063667 wrote:Here are the candidates positions on the issues and their 'scores' and placement on the political spectrum by their record:

Newt Gingrich
http://www.issues2000.org/Newt_Gingrich.htm
hard core conservative

Mitt Romney
http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
populist leaning conservative

Ron Paul
http://www.issues2000.org/ron_paul.htm
conservative leaning libertarian

Rick Santorum
http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
hard core conservative

Barack Obama
http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm
hard core liberal

Fact....according to the record, Ron Paul is NOT the most conservative candidate out there...not even close. He is a LIBERTARIAN with a very slight conservative tilt.
Fact...no matter what you think...there is a considerable difference between the candidates...and especially the "R" candidates and the president.

It is as BGfalcons said on the other thread,,, Paul is a libertarian, not to be confused with a conservative.

All depends on your definition of conservative. He is the most fiscally conservative of all the canidates, this can not be disputed.

HitsRus;1063697 wrote:Are you sure you are not redefining conservative? What's wrong with being libertarian? If that is what you are, then embrace it. Conservative have always been for a strong military.

Ron Paul is for a strong military. He is not for aggressive pre-emptive action around the world. He is for our military being stronger and in the US instead of spread throughout the world. Spreading the military out makes the military weaker.

O-Trap;1063700 wrote:
Strong, yes. Aggressive and spread all over the world, no.

Reps

Manhattan Buckeye;1063794 wrote:Agreed 100%. I don't like the TSA rules but I follow them when I travel in U.S. airspace. That Rand Paul is in Congress is a maguffin, I don't care about who he is or what he is. Many other Americans travel so much that it is obvious they aren't terrorists. I guaran-damn-tee that my wife has traveled more in calendar year '11 than Rand Paul has in his lifetime, if nothing else the three times on the Singapore Airlines flight to Newark back and forth makes his protest look very puny. If he doesn't like the pat-down take it up with Congress, don't make a rear-end of yourself.

Doesn't the Constitution protect elected congressman in this situation? Do you not care about the Constitution then?

majorspark

This whole media shtick by the Ronulans is driving me nuts. Fox is the current target. They sound like the left wing loons. Its counter productive. Know your audience. Large numbers of primary voters are tuning in to the debates. Debate performances are influencing voters. Paul is not good at getting his message across in short segments. Paul attempts to teach. You can't teach in that format. You have to sell. You don't have to lie to sell your message to the rabid wolves. You just need to know your audience and give them the proper dose of truth they need. I have given examples of this.

majorspark

dwccrew;1065848 wrote:Ron Paul is for a strong military. He is not for aggressive pre-emptive action around the world. He is for our military being stronger and in the US instead of spread throughout the world. Spreading the military out makes the military weaker.

Here is where Paul fails to communicate. I gave an example of how he should have made the point that he would have been more aggressive and than Bush concerning post 9/11 Afghanistan. He would have asked congress to let it all on the table and make war official then unleashed the full force of the US military to kill or capture Bin Laden and destroy the Taliban regime that refuse to turn him over.

He gives people the impression that he would not have done this. Because American was bad. Like it was invited. Though we were doing what every other nation does in this world. Use its power. The world is governed by the agressive use of force.

Paul needs to find a way to communicate these two issues. Its not Fox news. I have carried Pauls water on a few posts on this. If he has any chance he needs to communicate it now. He has failed so far. If that is what Paul would done many are left to wonder.

believer

majorspark;1065883 wrote:This whole media shtick by the Ronulans is driving me nuts. Fox is the current target. They sound like the left wing loons. Its counter productive.

Reps

The cult-like attitude of the Ronulans certainly isn't helping Paul's case.

HitsRus

He would have asked congress to let it all on the table and make war official then unleashed the full force of the US military to kill or capture Bin Laden and destroy the Taliban regime that refuse to turn him over

Respectfully, I disagree. The US did issue an ultimatum to the Taliban a few weeks after 9/11...and there was a logistical problem...there were no bases nearby from which to launch a full scale attack.

The cult-like attitude of the Ronulans certainly isn't helping Paul's case.

Agree with this. I am uncommitted as of this point, but the rhetoric, 'superiority' and inflexibility coming out of that camp turns me off. If I just listen to Paul, I actually might be able support him.

WebFire

HitsRus;1066006 wrote: Agree with this. I am uncommitted as of this point, but the rhetoric, 'superiority' and inflexibility coming out of that camp turns me off. If I just listen to Paul, I actually might be able support him.

So you don't support a guy because of his fans? It's not wonder we can vote a decent guy in.

BoatShoes

I just continue to be amazed that, in election that is all supposed to be about getting our fiscal house in order and domestic policy and turning the tide away from the descent into socialism, that conservatives are finding excuses not to vote for the most principled and unwavering fiscal conservative since at least Barry Goldwater, because he doesn't want to borrow money to attack Iran pre-emptively (essentially).

Ron Paul in the aggregate is infinitely more conservative or at least as conservative than any of those republican candidates on every issue except foreign policy in the traditional hawk sense. The only one of those candidates who would radically reduce the size of the federal government in the way that conservatives say they want is Ron Paul. Period. It really is something to see small government conservatives find any and all reasons not to vote for him.

I mean sure, the Ron Paul Fan Boys can be annoying but the whole reason they're acting that way is because so many GOPers are working overtime to not want to accept the guy.

Take for instance, a comparison between him and Santorum. Both he and Santorum are pro-life unequivocally but Santorum would basically imply Congress to have a general type of police power to regulate abortion at the federal level...which is certainly unconstitutional according to the strict constructionist/original meaning/Justice Thomas style view of interpreting the Constitution that conservatives prefer. Paul is in the aggregate more conservative than him taking that into account.

The tradition of hawk like world wide stewardship and interventionist foreign policy has its roots in Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt style progressivism...Not William Howard Taft style conservatism.

jhay78

majorspark;1065911 wrote:Here is where Paul fails to communicate. I gave an example of how he should have made the point that he would have been more aggressive and than Bush concerning post 9/11 Afghanistan. He would have asked congress to let it all on the table and make war official then unleashed the full force of the US military to kill or capture Bin Laden and destroy the Taliban regime that refuse to turn him over.

He gives people the impression that he would not have done this. Because American was bad. Like it was invited. Though we were doing what every other nation does in this world. Use its power. The world is governed by the agressive use of force.

Paul needs to find a way to communicate these two issues. Its not Fox news. I have carried Pauls water on a few posts on this. If he has any chance he needs to communicate it now. He has failed so far. If that is what Paul would done many are left to wonder.

There are rational, intelligent, reasonable ways to talk about the overextended US military presence around the world, or about how our bloated military budget unnecessarily contributes to our growing debt problem, or about why foreigners/Muslims/Middle Easterners view America in a negative light. Then there's the way Ron Paul has been doing it.

The guy has tinkered around the edges of 9/11 trutherism, agreed with Osama bin Laden that our military presence in Saudi Arabia inspired most of the 9/11 hijackers, said that the Bush administration was "gleeful" after 9/11 because they had an excuse to invade Iraq. He's said he understands why Iran as a sovereign nation would want a nuclear bomb, but then says don't worry they aren't even close to getting one.

He's also said that the only reason the Taliban hates us is because we're in their country, i.e, they don't like foreigners, when the fact is they were nurtured, armed, and financed by Saudis and Pakistanis (those are foreigners to Afghanistan). I have a hard time believing he would unleash holy hell on the group that gave safe haven to Al Qaeda long before 9/11.

That crap (and I could list a dozen more examples) turns people off to Ron Paul who might otherwise be inclined to accept the fiscal responsibility side of his foreign policy views.

BoatShoes;1066184 wrote:I just continue to be amazed that, in election that is all supposed to be about getting our fiscal house in order and domestic policy and turning the tide away from the descent into socialism, that conservatives are finding excuses not to vote for the most principled and unwavering fiscal conservative since at least Barry Goldwater, because he doesn't want to borrow money to attack Iran pre-emptively (essentially).

It really is something to see small government conservatives find any and all reasons not to vote for him.

What's really something is how you oversimplify and over-generalize the arguments of those who disagree with Ron Paul. I listed (off the top of my head) a half-dozen head-scratchers from Ron Paul just during this primary season. I could spend more time digging and pasting quotes but I think the point has been made. Conservatives want smaller government but Ron Paul's rhetoric turns people off.

HitsRus

^^^great post...exactly...reps.

LOL at Boatshoes for exposing the democrat strategy of divide and conquer as it is the only hope of getting the community organizer re-elected. I have not decided who I'm voting for in the primary as there are things I don't like in all of the candidates. BUT, I will state unequivocally that I'm voting for whoever is the nominee, as we cannot afford 4 more years of what is going on. Anybody who thinks that there is no difference between having Obama in the White house and any of the other GOP canbdidates loses any and all credibility with me. There may be a difference of magnitude, but there is a difference, and a small step in the right direction is better than allowing the current path to continue.

BoatShoes

jhay78;1066405 wrote:There are rational, intelligent, reasonable ways to talk about the overextended US military presence around the world, or about how our bloated military budget unnecessarily contributes to our growing debt problem, or about why foreigners/Muslims/Middle Easterners view America in a negative light. Then there's the way Ron Paul has been doing it.

The guy has tinkered around the edges of 9/11 trutherism, agreed with Osama bin Laden that our military presence in Saudi Arabia inspired most of the 9/11 hijackers, said that the Bush administration was "gleeful" after 9/11 because they had an excuse to invade Iraq. He's said he understands why Iran as a sovereign nation would want a nuclear bomb, but then says don't worry they aren't even close to getting one.

He's also said that the only reason the Taliban hates us is because we're in their country, i.e, they don't like foreigners, when the fact is they were nurtured, armed, and financed by Saudis and Pakistanis (those are foreigners to Afghanistan). I have a hard time believing he would unleash holy hell on the group that gave safe haven to Al Qaeda long before 9/11.

That crap (and I could list a dozen more examples) turns people off to Ron Paul who might otherwise be inclined to accept the fiscal responsibility side of his foreign policy views.

What's really something is how you oversimplify and over-generalize the arguments of those who disagree with Ron Paul. I listed (off the top of my head) a half-dozen head-scratchers from Ron Paul just during this primary season. I could spend more time digging and pasting quotes but I think the point has been made. Conservatives want smaller government but Ron Paul's rhetoric turns people off.

Even if all of that is true...none of that outweighs the fact that this IS/WAS we're told the most important election domestic policy-wise ever. If the tea party types were serious you ought to not hardly be bothered by his foreign policy positions.

I actually listened to Rush during my lunch break today and he has guy call in calling Romney a Socialist and Rush basically replied that Newt is just as socialist as Romney (nevermind that nobody seems to know what a socialist is). The rest of the time Rush is talking about how Newt Gingrich basically repudiated Ronald Reagan's foreign policy saying he failed. He repudiated the great saint of the Republican party. How's that for a head scratcher?

The caller says, "What's the difference between a Republican Socialist and a Democrat Socialist." I'm sorry but the only one of these cats who clearly is not under their weird definition of a socialist is crazy uncle Ron.

You're just not a serious fiscal domestic conservative and that is fine but we've known this for a long time...conservatives don't hold republicans to the same standard they hold democrats...you're ok I guess with big government so long as a Republican is in charge.

BoatShoes

HitsRus;1066461 wrote:^^^great post...exactly...reps.

LOL at Boatshoes for exposing the democrat strategy of divide and conquer as it is the only hope of getting the community organizer re-elected. I have not decided who I'm voting for in the primary as there are things I don't like in all of the candidates. BUT, I will state unequivocally that I'm voting for whoever is the nominee, as we cannot afford 4 more years of what is going on. Anybody who thinks that there is no difference between having Obama in the White house and any of the other GOP canbdidates loses any and all credibility with me. There may be a difference of magnitude, but there is a difference, and a small step in the right direction is better than allowing the current path to continue.

So if the country is really on a runaway train toward bankruptcy as conservatives act like it is under Obama, (I don't believe it is but this is the conservative position) you're cool with it happening a few years later I suppose? Face it, despite Obama being a weak president and Republicans doing whatever they can at every turn they've got 4 guys left who can't beat him. If everyone got behind Ron Paul he's probably the only one who has a shot because he's the only one who can completely contrast Obama on every single issue and he appeals to independents. And, at least he's been a principled conservative his whole life.

Every conservative I talk to says "well you know I didn't support Bush when was acting like a democrat expanding government." Seriously now is your chance to prove that. In the general sure you vote for whatever Republican is the nominee but considering that conservatives are taking turns arguing whether Romney or Gingrich is more of a socialist/liberal it seems to me the only choice if you're a fiscal conservative above all else in the primary it's Ron Paul.

The fact is, (do I sound like Newt?) is that the goal for Republicans is to get rid of a president who is supposedly a socialist. The march toward socialism in America is our greatest threat so we hear. Yet, Republicans are debating over who is more of a socialist between Mitt and Newt. NOBODY would argue in a million years that Ron Paul is anywhere close to a "socialist". If it is the goal then to stop the march toward socialism, how then is Ron Paul not the obvious choice?

What good is it to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon if America has crumbled under the weight of an unsustainable socialist welfare state???

pmoney25

This is an honest question , actually two.

1. What is the reason why we were attacked on 9/11 and why are we targeted ?

2. You state how these other candidates are different than Obama. Lets assume you are right. How are Romney,Gingrich,Santorum any different from GWB "conservatism?

If my choice is another bush(who I twice voted for), or Obama. I say no thanks to either. .

fish82

pmoney25;1066514 wrote:This is an honest question , actually two.

1. What is the reason why we were attacked on 9/11 and why are we targeted ?

2. You state how these other candidates are different than Obama. Lets assume you are right. How are Romney,Gingrich,Santorum any different from GWB "conservatism?

If my choice is another bush(who I twice voted for), or Obama. I say no thanks to either. .

Who gives a shit what their reason was? If you don't like our foreign policy, go burn a flag or march down the street with a sandwich board or something.

Archive

Republican candidates for 2012