- This topic has 6 voices and 38 replies.
-
Posts
-
Scott Brown will be the GOP nominee, but Paul might be his VP. Just a thought.
I don't think that an abortion-friendly politician would be the presidential candidate for the Republicans.
Obama is going to get a second term as long as the economy holds together and he follows through on his promise to pull the troops out of Iraq. But if the dollar collapses and he gets us embroiled in a conflict with Iran, he's out.
Given the current political climate, no way he gets a second term. As to the economy, it looks to be sinking into stagflation and not getting any better anytime soon. All of his proposals entail growing the debt, which means we will have to pay it back sometime. Conservatives need to keep harping on the economy and they will win and win big.I do not think any of the current suspects will be the nominee in 2012. I foresee someone coming out of the shadows, like that woman in Minnesota, Michelle Bachman I think. Palin is too divisive to be broadly popular and much as I hate to say it Romney is a Mormon and that hangs around his neck even though it should not.As to Ron Paul, he is flaky. On some things he is dead on, on others he is way out in left fied. He is like pat Buchanan in that respect. Occasionally Buchanan nails it but the rest of the time he just puts out lunatic ravings.Here is a good quote from a post on IMAO I saw today that nails the problems with Ron Paul in a humorous manner.
Obligatory Ron Paul Won The CPAC Poll PostPosted by Basil at 4:46 pmNews outlets are playing up the CPAC straw poll that Ron Paul won.Some are asking ?What does this mean?? Others are saying ?Here?s what this means.?Being a conservative blogger ? I?m a better at being a conservative than I am at being a blogger ? it?s my duty to either ask what it means, or say what it means.So, I?ll do neither.Instead, I?ll tell you why Ron Paul is a nutcase: Because he?s nuts.Oh, sure, he has some good ideas. There are many, many issues where he and I agree. And, where we disagree, it?s likely an issue where I?m more conservative than he.But, there are areas where I agree with Barack Obama. Like sending more troops to Afghanistan. If the military says they need more troops, they should get more troops.And, if we want to play to ?I agree with ?? game, it could done with just about anybody.And, on lots of issues, Ron Paul is right.But, he?s like that crazy uncle that fought in the big war. He was right about so many things, and has done a lot of good. But also walks down to the post office and pees on the plastic plants in the corner.That?s Ron Paul. Here?s an old CNN video where he says he doesn?t accept the 9/11 commission findings, and says that our presence in the region contributed to the attacks.
The 2012 election wil be interesting but any debate about who will run now is academic at best. The big question is what will happen this fall. I would love to see the Republicans make gains such that neither party has control of both houses. What we really need is for government to shut down for a good while and let people see the mess this country is really in. We need realists in office and not hacks who only try to bring home the bacon while spreading the pain wide enough that they can deflect the blame from themselves.
I had heard that only about 25% of the CPAC attendees voted in the straw poll, and that some (many?) were college students. So that could have been the reason for the skew.
I don't accept the 911 Commission findings either.
To change the subject a little, why not? Even better, what then is the alternative? I have read the commission report and they were nothing if not rigorous and analytical. Every other version of what happened smacks of conspiracy theorists. Just look at the biggest alternative, Loose Change, If that is not flaky, what is?This strand should probably be an entirely different thread.This fall will be interesting. I saw O's new health proposal that he is going to try an buttonhook the Republicans with. I think the Republicans should be proud of the "Party of No" moniker as long as they are saying no to idiocy.
I have learned to question everything from my government these days, especially after 911. I'm not going to get into this touchy subject here, but let's just say I don't believe we have been told the whole story, and probably never will.
Saw this quote in the comments section of a satire piece about Ron Paul today and immediately thought of this thread.
Ron Paul?s unilaterally disarming, blame-America-first views on national security and foreign affairs would spell the end of America as a world power, which is why anti-American leftists like ?Oscar Le Grouche? are rooting for him for all they?re worth. And also which is why the Republican Party must reject him like an invading virus.
Ironically this poster's summation is exactly why I dislike Ron Paul. I agree with him on many issues but national security is a show-stopper for me. We live in a dangerous world and unilateral disarmament will not make it safer.
Saw this quote in the comments section of a satire piece about Ron Paul today and immediately thought of this thread.
Ron Paul?s unilaterally disarming, blame-America-first views on national security and foreign affairs would spell the end of America as a world power, which is why anti-American leftists like ?Oscar Le Grouche? are rooting for him for all they?re worth. And also which is why the Republican Party must reject him like an invading virus.
Ironically this poster's summation is exactly why I dislike Ron Paul. I agree with him on many issues but national security is a show-stopper for me. We live in a dangerous world and unilateral disarmament will not make it safer.
Who is more dangerous than the United States? We are so far beyond any other nation militarily it isn't even funny. Russia and China fear us enough that they have joined forces as a counterbalance to our global power. Just because we are theoretically a benign country, doesn't mean we always will be...and we do spread our weight around the world like it was nobody's business right now. How long can we afford to be the world's policeman? Ron Paul's concerns are the costs of empire, and that can be a national security issue too.
There is a difference between safeguarding national interests and the total disarmament that Paul advocates. We have not been able to crawl into a cocoon behind two oceans since about the 1880's why he thinks we can do it now I have no idea. I agree that we need to cut back on the overseas commitment bit. The question is, if we withdraw from the world, what then happens or are you cool with an ascendant, China, Iran, Russia, and every other two-bit dictator bullying everybody and eventually us? The difference between lunacy and realism is not very far, unfortunately Ron Paul tilted a little bit too far towards lunacy in his stance on national security for me. Obama is doing the same with his headlong rush to get rid of our nukes, which Paul also advocates BTW.
I don't know if you appreciate that kind of humor but there is a buzz about a recent event involving a university police officer from Davis University, becoming quite funnyhttp://boingboing.net/2011/11/20/occupy-lulz.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmJmmnMkuEM&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU7y81FBxu4&feature=player_embedded#!
