Discuss the Republican Presidental Nominee Here

Ron Paul is the only real candidate in this election. He's going to shock everyone, and rightfully so. Just watch. If people want real change (and we need it), vote Ron Paul. Look him up. He IS the best candidate, I am 100% convinced.
[i415781aeaf]
I split this thread off from the Democratic nominee thread - this was not Bruman's thread to begin with, so don't understand the first post to be so declarative as it suggests. I also deleted a few posts that asked for a thread to be created for Republican discussion...- doylnea[/i415781aeaf]
[i415781aeaf]
Added a poll for giggles - hehehhehe[/i415781aeaf]

[quote1663bf60e4="bruman"]Ron Paul is the only real candidate in this election. He's going to shock everyone, and rightfully so. Just watch. If people want real change (and we need it), vote Ron Paul. Look him up. He IS the best candidate, I am 100% convinced.[/quote1663bf60e4]
I'm sorry, but Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance, regardless of his cult following. I don't think he'll shock anyone, really -- I predict he won't even get close. He's a total flake, and advocates idealistic but unrealistic policies that [i1663bf60e4]sound[/i1663bf60e4] good, but that he would never be able to implement. Abolish the IRS? Sounds great, but it'll never happen. It's pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking that isn't grounded in reality. Therefore he continues to sideline himself and lose credibility. Naive voters love him for obvious reasons, but most of them don't really understand how the political machine works. Those that do understand such things, think he's from Mars. )

As much as I'd love to see someone come in and shake up the government, including an independent or even Libertarian, unfortunately the two primary parties still have a virtual lock. I don't believe in throwing away a vote, so I've got to pick from the lesser of the two major evils...

[quote713731f623="J4320"]Why is this thread only for Democratic nominees? I don't get it.[/quote713731f623]
I assume because GDJ is a Democrat, and that's where her interest lies?

[quote713731f623="CollidgeGraduit"]I don't think historically a republican has eve won the democratic nomination.[/quote713731f623]
lol

My parents are for Clinton, because the middle class has it very good with Bill. I was leaning towards Barack, but now I don't know yet. I have to to do more research. I don't like some things that Barack has been doing. Something about him saying that he would not settle for vice president makes me feel he is a little bit too power hungry.

[quoted75f79842a="Powerbook"]My parents are for Clinton, because the middle class has it very good with Bill. [/quoted75f79842a]
I think it would be a huge mistake to equate Hillary with Bill. I could actually see myself voting for Bill again, but never ever Hillary.

Yeah, I get at what you are saying. They seem to think that even though Hilary is running, Bill will still be the one making the calls. I think this is a pretty common idea throughout most older folks who liked the Clinton years. Personally, I am not finding a good candidate to vote for. I registered as a Democrat, but the reality is that I am just a moderate. I support most republican ideals in terms of business and trade, but social issues are definitely liberal for me.

[quote89e71b7789="dmorris68"][quote89e71b7789="bruman"]Ron Paul is the only real candidate in this election. He's going to shock everyone, and rightfully so. Just watch. If people want real change (and we need it), vote Ron Paul. Look him up. He IS the best candidate, I am 100% convinced.[/quote89e71b7789]
I'm sorry, but Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance, regardless of his cult following. I don't think he'll shock anyone, really -- I predict he won't even get close. He's a total flake, and advocates idealistic but unrealistic policies that [i89e71b7789]sound[/i89e71b7789] good, but that he would never be able to implement. Abolish the IRS? Sounds great, but it'll never happen. It's pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking that isn't grounded in reality. Therefore he continues to sideline himself and lose credibility. Naive voters love him for obvious reasons, but most of them don't really understand how the political machine works. Those that do understand such things, think he's from Mars. )

As much as I'd love to see someone come in and shake up the government, including an independent or even Libertarian, unfortunately the two primary parties still have a virtual lock. I don't believe in throwing away a vote, so I've got to pick from the lesser of the two major evils...[/quote89e71b7789]

First of all Ron Paul is a Republican. He's also going to be the #1 Republican fundraiser this quarter, no doubt about it. He does stand a chance, a good one in fact.

His policies are more realistic than any of the other candidates. All of the other candidates talk and talk but they really aren't going to get anything done. Ron Paul has been saying the exact same thing for the past 30 years and has a spotless voting record in congress.

As far as abolishing the IRS... what is so hard to believe about that? The size of the federal government would be smaller, and furthermore, we spend over 1 TRILLION dollars fighting overseas. We're going bankrupt.. our national deficit is already over 9 trillion. The U.S. dollar is losing its value. With Ron Paul as president, he would bring ALL the troops home and save tons of money that would be used to take care of the people here at home.

The monetary system is the key to everything and this is why Ron Paul's candidacy is so vitally important to this election. No other candidates are addressing this issue in as meaningful and realistic a way as Dr. Paul.

[quotee60cb5dfea="bruman"]First of all Ron Paul is a Republican. He's also going to be the #1 Republican fundraiser this quarter, no doubt about it. He does stand a chance, a good one in fact.

His policies are more realistic than any of the other candidates. All of the other candidates talk and talk but they really aren't going to get anything done. Ron Paul has been saying the exact same thing for the past 30 years and has a spotless voting record in congress.

As far as abolishing the IRS... what is so hard to believe about that? The size of the federal government would be smaller, and furthermore, we spend over 1 TRILLION dollars fighting overseas. We're going bankrupt.. our national deficit is already over 9 trillion. The U.S. dollar is losing its value. With Ron Paul as president, he would bring ALL the troops home and save tons of money that would be used to take care of the people here at home.

The monetary system is the key to everything and this is why Ron Paul's candidacy is so vitally important to this election. No other candidates are addressing this issue in as meaningful and realistic a way as Dr. Paul.[/quotee60cb5dfea]
First of all, who ever said he wasn't a republican? You brought him up first in this thread about democratic nominees.

I agree completely with dmorris about Ron Paul, and I thought your post also proved his point. No one's saying that it might be a bad idea to get rid of the IRS, but that it won't happen, even if Paul does become president. I'm not saying I don't understand what you're hoping for (stronger dollar, less money spent on war, etc.) so don't take it as a flame.

I don't care for kucinich but I wouldn't mind seeing his wife more often...

[quotee2d5fd2259="hehehhehe"][quotee2d5fd2259="bruman"]First of all Ron Paul is a Republican. He's also going to be the #1 Republican fundraiser this quarter, no doubt about it. He does stand a chance, a good one in fact.

His policies are more realistic than any of the other candidates. All of the other candidates talk and talk but they really aren't going to get anything done. Ron Paul has been saying the exact same thing for the past 30 years and has a spotless voting record in congress.

As far as abolishing the IRS... what is so hard to believe about that? The size of the federal government would be smaller, and furthermore, we spend over 1 TRILLION dollars fighting overseas. We're going bankrupt.. our national deficit is already over 9 trillion. The U.S. dollar is losing its value. With Ron Paul as president, he would bring ALL the troops home and save tons of money that would be used to take care of the people here at home.

The monetary system is the key to everything and this is why Ron Paul's candidacy is so vitally important to this election. No other candidates are addressing this issue in as meaningful and realistic a way as Dr. Paul.[/quotee2d5fd2259]
First of all, who ever said he wasn't a republican? You brought him up first in this thread about democratic nominees.

I agree completely with dmorris about Ron Paul, and I thought your post also proved his point. No one's saying that it might be a bad idea to get rid of the IRS, but that it won't happen, even if Paul does become president. I'm not saying I don't understand what you're hoping for (stronger dollar, less money spent on war, etc.) so don't take it as a flame.

I don't care for kucinich but I wouldn't mind seeing his wife more often...[/quotee2d5fd2259]

I'm saying we wouldn't need an income tax/IRS under a ron paul administration because we wouldn't be wasting all the trillions and trillions overseas. How is that proving the point of dmorris?

The reason I said ron paul is a republican is because of dmorris' last paragraph... i wasn't sure if he knew ron paul was a republican.

The problem with getting the IRS is that it isn't that easy. You think government officials would want to get rid of it just like that?

[quote2330f7145b="bruman"]I'm saying we wouldn't need an income tax/IRS under a ron paul administration because we wouldn't be wasting all the trillions and trillions overseas. How is that proving the point of dmorris?

The reason I said ron paul is a republican is because of dmorris' last paragraph... i wasn't sure if he knew ron paul was a republican.[/quote2330f7145b]
I'll spell it out then. If you think that Paul could abolish the IRS because of the money we'd be saving by bringing the troops back, you're being terribly naive. Again, I'm not saying I'm for it or against it, just that it won't happen.

dmorris' last paragraph just said 'including an independent or even Libertarian,' and didn't seem to me like he was labeling Paul either way. Republicans can run as independents too you know?

[quoted9c77df62a="hehehhehe"][quoted9c77df62a="bruman"]I'm saying we wouldn't need an income tax/IRS under a ron paul administration because we wouldn't be wasting all the trillions and trillions overseas. How is that proving the point of dmorris?

The reason I said ron paul is a republican is because of dmorris' last paragraph... i wasn't sure if he knew ron paul was a republican.[/quoted9c77df62a]
I'll spell it out then. If you think that Paul could abolish the IRS because of the money we'd be saving by bringing the troops back, you're being terribly naive. Again, I'm not saying I'm for it or against it, just that it won't happen.

dmorris' last paragraph just said 'including an independent or even Libertarian,' and didn't seem to me like he was labeling Paul either way. Republicans can run as independents too you know?[/quoted9c77df62a]

That would be a huge chunk of it. I didn't say it would contribute to all of it.. the government would have to be smaller. We never had an income tax before I think 1916 with the 16th amendment. It's not going to happen right away if he's elected, obviously. But once government spending is cut and the budget is more balanced, I don't have any doubt that it's achievable. He would need approval from the Senate, House of Representatives, etc. If the people elect him in that would sway a lot of their minds and the pressure would be on them. He could get a lot done.. not everything, but a lot. He does have this vision of a free nation, and it does make sense. Some of it is idealistic, but his ideals would lead this country in a much better direction that it's going right now.

You guys are being naive if you aren't thinking outside of what the very biased media tells you.

But I guess we'll see who's right when Ron Paul wins next year.

[quotefa1189bc7e="michae229"][quotefa1189bc7e="level99"][quotefa1189bc7e="J4320"]Why is this thread only for Democratic nominees? I don't get it.[/quotefa1189bc7e]

Yea, what's up with that?[/quotefa1189bc7e]

you seriously think a republican is going to win lmao[/quotefa1189bc7e] No Not really, but it is not impossible, and I'm sure there are just as many republicans as there are democrats on this forum. I am personally independent and I think all of the candidates on both sides this time around are a joke especially Hillary.

bruman, I admire your devotion to your candidate, no matter who they are. )

And yes, I'm aware that Ron Paul is a Republican, be he is so far outside the mainstream that he doesn't "fit" into any party mold. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. However he is SO far removed from the realities of government leadership that he may as well be an independent, and independents never fair well in general elections. And he will CERTAINLY not win the party nomination -- how can you seriously believe that? Fundraising success aside, he's so far behind in the polls that he barely even registers.

According to the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll on Republican candidate rankings

Giuliani - 24%
Huckabee - 22%
Romney - 16%
McCain - 12%
Thompson - 10%
[be5b527e9aa]Paul - 6%[/be5b527e9aa]
Hunter - 2%
Tancredo - 1%

No, polls aren't a deciding factor for the top candidates, but they are certainly a useful and fairly reliable barometer of who will NOT be in contention. When has somebody every come from a single-digit position in the polls to actually winning anything? I hate to rain on your enthusiastic parade, but you really seem to have a naive idea of how presidential-level politics work. Not trying to flame you, but I'm trying to understand you, and from what you're saying I just have a hard time taking you seriously. If 20 is your real age, then you've never voted in a presidential election before. Perhaps you were a poly-sci geek as a kid, but I would bet that this is the first campaign that you've followed and really gotten into. And again, I do admire your enthusiasm, because far too many youth today are completely ignorant and ambivalent about electing our leaders. But your zealousness is getting in the way of reality, I'm afraid.

[quoted079e08623="CollidgeGraduit"][quoted079e08623="michae229"][quoted079e08623="level99"][quoted079e08623="J4320"]Why is this thread only for Democratic nominees? I don't get it.[/quoted079e08623]

Yea, what's up with that?[/quoted079e08623]

you seriously think a republican is going to win lmao[/quoted079e08623]

I don't think historically a republican has eve won the democratic nomination.[/quoted079e08623]

i mean become president period

[quote1bb385ec46="bruman"] But once government spending is cut and the budget is more balanced, I don't have any doubt that it's achievable. He would need approval from the Senate, House of Representatives, etc. If the people elect him in that would sway a lot of their minds and the pressure would be on them.[/quote1bb385ec46]
The Federal budget has been balanced as recently as FY2000 I believe, and there was still a need for the IRS. If there's no IRS, how does Paul plan to collect monies that are distributed for things like Federal highways, let alone a military or public education?

I regularly interact with congressmen and congresswomen, and to think that Paul could abolish the IRS (who collects funds, which are distributed to their constituents) yet maintain a relationship, let alone a give and take relationship with them is unbelievably naive.

[quote240a4c7a38="dmorris68"]bruman, I admire your devotion to your candidate, no matter who they are. )

And yes, I'm aware that Ron Paul is a Republican, be he is so far outside the mainstream that he doesn't "fit" into any party mold. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. However he is SO far removed from the realities of government leadership that he may as well be an independent, and independents never fair well in general elections. And he will CERTAINLY not win the party nomination -- how can you seriously believe that? Fundraising success aside, he's so far behind in the polls that he barely even registers.

According to the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll on Republican candidate rankings

Giuliani - 24%
Huckabee - 22%
Romney - 16%
McCain - 12%
Thompson - 10%
[b240a4c7a38]Paul - 6%[/b240a4c7a38]
Hunter - 2%
Tancredo - 1%

No, polls aren't a deciding factor for the top candidates, but they are certainly a useful and fairly reliable barometer of who will NOT be in contention. When has somebody every come from a single-digit position in the polls to actually winning anything? I hate to rain on your enthusiastic parade, but you really seem to have a naive idea of how presidential-level politics work. Not trying to flame you, but I'm trying to understand you, and from what you're saying I just have a hard time taking you seriously. If 20 is your real age, then you've never voted in a presidential election before. Perhaps you were a poly-sci geek as a kid, but I would bet that this is the first campaign that you've followed and really gotten into. And again, I do admire your enthusiasm, because far too many youth today are completely ignorant and ambivalent about electing our leaders. But your zealousness is getting in the way of reality, I'm afraid.[/quote240a4c7a38]

Remember John Kerry? He was polling at around 3-5% around December of 2003 and he ended up winning. I've heard the same thing was true for Jimmy Carter and others.

I've been very involved in the Ron Paul campaign since around April/May this year. I've kept a close eye on pretty much everything involved in this years election. I understand why you feel this way, but I honestly believe that this years election will be different than any others. I'm not just saying that on naivety or any intuition or anything like that... here's is why I believe he has a shot at winning

- As I've said, he is more than certainly going to be the #1 Republican fundraiser this year. This is from small donors as well, not like big business, lobbyists, etc supporting the other "frontrunners". This is allowing him to advertise in early primary states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. This will also give him a lot of momentum going in to Iowa, assuming the total Quarter 4 fundraising numbers will be released at the end of the year (Iowa is Jan. 3rd, New Hampshire Jan. 8th). Momentum is a powerful thing in politics... just see how Mike Huckabee shot up 10-15 points within like a week span.

- I think the polls are underestimating Ron Pauls support. Many times the polls are just polling "likely republican voters", most of whom voted for Bush in '04 (which means most are heavily pro-war). Ron Paul is bringing in people from ALL over the political spectrum... republicans, democrats, independents, NEW voters -- remember.. only a small chunk of Americans vote in the primary.. I think like 10%. Those polls are not polling the new voters, those who have switched or those who are undeclared, which, with Ron Paul, counts for a huge chunk of his support. A LOT moreso than the other Republican candidates who are pretty much more of the same.

- Ron Paul has a good chance of getting 3rd in Iowa... he's only a few points off in some polls from 3rd place. Huckabee and Romney are going to completely wreck each other, so they are going to go on. If Ron Paul gets at least 3rd, which I think is probable, that will hold some momentum

- New Hampshire may very well be make or break. He's shooting up in the polls and support (just ask anyone who lives in New Hampshire... there are more ron paul signs than any other candidate). New Hampshire is over 50% independent.. their state motto is "live free or die". This, combined with adveritsing, grassroots, etc... he has a chance for winning this.

- Next is Michigan... if he wins New Hampshire, I almost guarantee you he will win Michigan. The only democrat on the ballot is Hillary Clinton due to some strike against Michigan moving up their primary. This will bring over a lot of democrats to Ron Paul. Michigan is an open primary... anyone can vote for anyone. I live in Michigan and have noticed tons of support for Ron Paul. If he gets a top 3 in Iowa, wins New Hampshire, wins Michigan --- domino effect to everything else.

- Ron Paul has the most dedicated grassroots supporters, much more than any other candidate by far. They've recently chipped in a blimp which will cost over $400,000 which will be travelling all over including new hampshire. They independently advertise in a variety of newspapers, ads, etc. They regularly attend large events, talk to the people, hand out slim jims. They are all volunteers as well. You will never see this much support with any other candidate unless they are paid.

- December 16th is going to be a huge day. Ron Paul supporters independetly are organizing a HUGE fundraiser day, similiar to November 5th in which they raised over 4.3 million in 24 hours. December 16th -- based off the Boston Tea Party (www.teaparty07.com), has more subscribers and is looking to beat Nov. 5th's total. Ron Paul is going to get tons of press for this. Be on the look out December 17th. The blimp will also be in boston to drop tea into the boston harbor ) Furthermore, all of this is spontaneous and out of the official campaigns control.. they have nothing to do with this. This is the people. This is real grassroots. These are the people who will go out and vote for Ron Paul no matter what. I would reckon that a larger percentage of those who support Ron Paul will be voting for him, moreso than a percentage of those who support Giuliani or whomever.

- Ron Paul is the only anti-war Republican. He sticks out. 70% of the American people want the war to end. Ron Paul has all of this grassroots support, not just because he is an honest and principled man, but because of his message. The media doesn't realize this, yet.

Well, that's a few reasons. I could probably note some more but my hands are getting tired. I'm not just basing my point that ron paul can win on some fantasy, it's based on beliefs and experiences. I really do think he has a shot at winning. But like I said, everything else does not matter... the real test is January 3rd and January 8th.. so we will see what happens.

[quote7c1b64823e="doylnea"][quote7c1b64823e="bruman"] But once government spending is cut and the budget is more balanced, I don't have any doubt that it's achievable. He would need approval from the Senate, House of Representatives, etc. If the people elect him in that would sway a lot of their minds and the pressure would be on them.[/quote7c1b64823e]
The Federal budget has been balanced as recently as FY2000 I believe, and there was still a need for the IRS. If there's no IRS, how does Paul plan to collect monies that are distributed for things like Federal highways, let alone a military or public education?

I regularly interact with congressmen and congresswomen, and to think that Paul could abolish the IRS (who collects funds, which are distributed to their constituents) yet maintain a relationship, let alone a give and take relationship with them is unbelievably naive.[/quote7c1b64823e]

2000 was before the war.. we are going bankrupt because of it.

Lets do some math

--------------
Federal budget of 2001 $1.8 trillion (source[=http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget]source)
Federal budget of 2008 $2.9 trillion

Difference $1.1 trillion

2007 income tax revenue $1.1 trillion ((source[=http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2007]source)
----------------

Would it really be impossible to eliminate the income tax? Cutting spending is the key. Ron Paul has NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget and has NEVER voted to raise taxes.

We are also spending $260 Billion per year (and rising) toward the interest on our debt.

About 25% of your income tax is going toward interest on the debt.

If we were to eliminate the income tax, we would be running on around a 1997 budget. You don't think we can cut spending to these levels.. esepecially if we aren't meddling in the foreign affairs of other countries?

Paul is going to have to contend with Mitt Romney in NH - Romney, as you know was governor of MA and has very strong support in NH.

[quotee8c169fc21="doylnea"]Paul is going to have to contend with Mitt Romney in NH - Romney, as you know was governor of MA and has very strong support in NH.[/quotee8c169fc21]

[quotee8c169fc21="doylnea"]Paul is going to have to contend with Mitt Romney in NH - Romney, as you know was governor of MA and has very strong support in NH.[/quotee8c169fc21]

True, true. Romney is putting all his eggs in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's crazy how much he's spent there trying to win their support (even millions of his own money!). But in my opinion he peaked way too early, and his support is weak. Dr. Paul has dedicated support and if he can get all this expected momentum along with the grassroots supporters doing their job there (some more dedicated supporters have even quit their jobs and moved to new hampshire to go door-to-door canvassing full-time recently!), then Ron Paul is going to be peaking at the right time. Huckabee's peak for example I don't think is going to last. The MSM and his opponents are finding TONS of dirt on him and it looks like that is going to wreck him.

Another reason Ron Paul has a shot at this... there is no real frontrunner in the Republican party. It's still very much undecided, and no one can predict for sure who is going to win.. support is really all over the place, which is strange for this late in the primary season.

If we eliminate income tax, how are we going to pay for the $1.8 trillion budget from 1997 that you advocate? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the war, nor do I appreciate the spending that's been taken from other programs and sent to the war, but the government needs to be funded somehow, and income tax is a large part of it. Corporate taxes aren't the answer, and they have huge lobbying budgets to make sure their tax is as low as possible.

[quote4511758d90="dmorris68"][quote4511758d90="J4320"]Why is this thread only for Democratic nominees? I don't get it.[/quote4511758d90]
I assume because GDJ is a Democrat, and that's where her interest lies?

lol[/quote4511758d90]

While I am a Democrat (does that shock some of you?) I'm very happy to discuss all sides. My original thread was created though to see whom everyone thought would get the democratic nom. I thought about creating a Republican thread too in all fairness but something happened to prevent me from doing so - think my cat tried to chew the power cord or something. Thanks to the mods then for making a separate thread. So, discuss options as you wish!

EDIT To stay on topic here then - I see Ron Paul paraphernalia literally all over the local towns - bumper stickers, banners, even posters in the ground. How do you factor in his grassroots support in the long haul?

In all fairness I think we will have to wait and see how Ron Paul performs in New Hampshire before you can really judge where he ranks in the race. Since this is a legitimate discussion I won't post the 1000 different stories you can all see on Digg for yourself which are obviously biased. Then again since his fund raising and internet support are relatively new I don't think it's practical to look at old polling methods to try to determine his support either.

I was intending to avoid going down this road, especially as a hijack to GDJ's Democratic poll thread, but I can't stand it anymore. EDIT good, no longer a hijack since doylnea split this off.

I believe that "bringing home the troops" in one fell swoop is yet another unrealistic and naive -- not to mention potentially catastrophic -- policy position. Not even most Democrats favor such a thing, recognizing it as the insanity that it is.

Mind you, I don't support every aspect of the war or how it was handled, although I did and still do support the initial attack and overthrow of the Taliban and Hussein. And believe me, as a veteran of the first Gulf War, I do want our troops home as safely and quickly as reasonably possible. But as far as we're into the thing, just pulling the plug and coming home virtually overnight is NOT a sound strategic move. We have too many interests in the region, despite what people want to admit. The people in the region that hate us the most, have always hated us. Our allies in the region do NOT want another Saddam Hussein in power, nor do they want the all-out civil war that will inevitably happen in the vacuum of our sudden departure. Trust me, the insurgents will not just pack up and leave when we're gone. The government in Iraq and Afghanistan are far too secular for the extremists to tolerate (yes Saddam was secular, be he was also a well-entrenched brutal dictator without the morals and values of the current government). As soon as we're out of there, they will turn their attention fully towards the secular government and social structures that they're already attacking right beside us (just look at all the mosque, market, police station, and civilian neighborhood bombings that happen all the time, as well as assassinations of officials). All of which is going to happen to some degree anyway, but given our investment in the region (in blood as well as money) we would be foolhardy to not leave a robust and supportive infrastructure that can better deal with the inevitable extremist violence that will continue to infect the region. We can't possibly do that with a sudden and complete withdrawal -- all we'd have is a violent implosion in the region that would destabilize things worse than they already are.

So I would support any candidate that will work towards accelerating that development, setting a realistic goal that is measured by progress and not timeline, for a staged withdrawal of troops. But there has to be a somewhat effective structure in place to fill that void, or watch my words -- we'll be back over there again. I was one of the many soldiers of GW1 that was infuriated at being called back from rolling into Baghdad and getting Hussein then. My cavalry unit was at the Euphrates near As Samawah, preparing to turn north to get the bastard, when we were told to stand down after the cease fire. A lot of us said then that we (the US) would have to come back one day. As we watched over the walled city of As Samawah, we witnessed mass executions of the residents by Saddam's security forces and gunships that were allowed to operate untouched by us -- we could only intervene if attacked, which they were vary careful not to do. Those memories will haunt me forever, because we could have easily saved those people yet we weren't allowed to. So yes, the region and its people have a place in my heart because I've been there and seen the quality of life under Hussein first-hand. I also remember how the Iraqi people loved us. I know that many of them now still appreciate our presence, despite the media telling us otherwise. I still have indirect contact with boots on the ground over there today who paint a very different picture than what we see in the media.

Think what you will of Bush, but most large terroristic organizations require a lot of support from sovereign nations to be effective on a global scale, and no sovereign nation wants to take on a hair-trigger president like Bush. On the contrary, if we put in a pansy, pacifist president that makes it known that he will never get involved in another country militarily, not only does it open us up to all sorts of attacks, but even more so our foreign allies that depend on Western security. It would be a destabilizing influence worldwide.

I do expect diplomacy above all else, but then when diplomacy ultimately fails I expect a president with the balls to slap the hell out of somebody.

doylnea Well, income taxes only contribute to 1/3 of the federal government.. so they definitely have a lot of other sources where they receive funds from. As far as highways and what not, I think we have a gas tax that pays for most of that. We pay it every time we get gas and most probably don't realize it, but it's added on.

dmorris68 Ron Paul is not going to bring the troops home overnight as you said, he has said that it would take about 3 months to do it. He voted to go after the terrorists/Osama bin laden in Afghanistan, but said we didn't do what we intended to and got into nation building and what not. The Iraq war was completely unjustifiable and we should have never gone there in the first place. We went there illegally, we did not declare war.. basically we were fed a spoonful of lies to get the American people for going in. Same thing with Iran. Ron Paul was the only candidate who said Iran was not a threat to us while all the other candidates said they wouldn't take nuking Iran off the table. Then we hear that Iran stopped their nuclear program back in 2003, and that they are no threat to us. The Iran threat was all war propaganda, and to think we were almost ready to go to war with them was frightening. Ron Paul was one of the few that had the foresight to see that we shouldn't of gone to war in Iraq and also Iran. He has good judgment.. and all he is doing is obeying the Constitution, which we have disregarded over the past several years and now we are in this mess.

If you are interested in Ron Pauls stance on the war, this is a pretty good recent video

http//abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3978940&page=1

Click the video image "Ron Paul Is War Ever Justifiable?"

http//www.teaparty07.com/images/set2/RPBanner468x69.jpg[" alt=""/img884141079d][=http//www.teaparty07.com/][img="884141079d]http//www.teaparty07.com/images/set2/RPBanner468x69.jpg[" alt=""/img884141079d][/url]
Today is the day! If you have some extra money and want to donate to the cause, now is the time to do it!

http//www.ronpaul2008.com

Keep track of the progress
[url==http//www.ronpaulgraphs.com]RonPaulGraphs.com - Q4 Donation Statistics & Stuff[=http//www.ronpaulgraphs.com]RonPaulGraphs.com - Q4 Donation Statistics & Stuff[/url]
[url=]http//ronpaulgraphs.com/dec_16_vs_nov_5_total.html[]http//ronpaulgraphs.com/dec_16_vs_nov_5_total.html[/url]
(comparison between today and Nov. 5th)

It's looking to be a 5 million + day

Ron Paul is the eighth grade class president nominee who promised
-To make the candy machine free
-to make pizza available everyday for lunch
-to make the school day shorter

He's full of ridiculous promises that can't be fulfilled. He's gonna get in office and suddenly be like "oh my god...I have no IDEA how this works!"

Romney all the way

[quotefb61a5336b="Powerbook"]Lots of attacks in the debate tonight. In the Republican debate, I feel that Ron Paul was constantly almost taunted and not given a fair chance. In the Democratic debate, it was a tag team of Obama and Edwards vs Clinton. I think that Obama might have slightly tarnished his image of "change," and came off of as snide with his comment that Hillary was likable also. I think Hillary came off as a bit too strong though.[/quotefb61a5336b]
Yeah I watched it last night and I actually felt bad for Paul. They wouldn't stop laughing whenever he spoke. Anyway I am hoping for McCain on the rep side. I have always liked him, and although he seemed to be out of gas for a while he seems to be doing well now.

And I'm hoping Hillary can get her groove back.

Are you kidding? McCain is worse than Bush

[quote20a564af3e="mnx12"]Are you kidding? McCain is worse than Bush[/quote20a564af3e]

Do you have any facts, quotes, examples? I'm interested in learning as much as I can.

[quotea2e7b64750="CollidgeGraduit"][quotea2e7b64750="mnx12"]Are you kidding? McCain is worse than Bush[/quotea2e7b64750]

Do you have any facts, quotes, examples? I'm interested in learning as much as I can.[/quotea2e7b64750]


When talking about Osama Bin Laden
"I will follow him to the gates of hell"
-John McCain


Sounds a little nutty to me, not sure how much it would cost to hunt him to the gates of hell but I'm pretty sure it's expensive.

McCain recently basically said he would have gone to Iraq irregardless of WMD. That's not something fantastic. I still don't think he would be worse than Bush though.

hi, read the title of the thread before you post again.

and discuss

Here's a conversation starter...
http//youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

[quote5c832babc8="doylnea"]hi, read the title of the thread before you post again.[/quote5c832babc8]
My bad, it's my fault. I originally meant to just say something about Hillary/Obama but ended up quoting that one post.

I'll try to do a split and merge.

EDIT Done.

[quoteb616007302="doylnea"]and discuss

Here's a conversation starter...
http//youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg[/quoteb616007302]
That was definitely at his low point lol, along with the time he said the streets of baghdad was safe for a stroll and the IED joke on the daily show.

Since then, he's championed the surge in Iraq that seems to be working. But yeah, I liked him more 7, 8 years ago when he was more of a 'maverick', it's been up and down since then as he has had to often support Bush so he could eventually win the rep. nomination.

I liked McCain a lot 8 years ago too. Now... I'm not so sure. He used to come across as more moderate. I still think he is, but the party is pressuring him to appear more to the right. But he does seem to be getting better again lately. I'm still undecided on the Republican side. Don't like Huckabee at all, Romney is meh. Forget Paul. Don't think I could go for Giulianni at this point either. That leaves pretty much McCain, and if he doesn't impress me enough by then, I might just jump sides this time and vote Obama.

I said "might." ;)

[quote71e0d68053="Powerbook"]McCain recently basically said he would have gone to Iraq irregardless of WMD. That's not something fantastic. I still don't think he would be worse than Bush though.[/quote71e0d68053]
I agree with his sentiment and would have done the same thing. I was highly pissed we didn't take out Saddam in '90. Trust me, as one of the guys over there at the time, I and everybody I knew over there wanted him badly. The world is a better place without him, the chaos and mismanagement over there now notwithstanding.

Thompson has my vote. Seems to be the only Reagan type conservative in the field. Of course that still leaves the issue of looking like a catchers mitt and sometimes wondering if he's taking a little nap on stage or if he's always so not exciting.

I wish he had the fire to match his values and ideas.

I also wish we had a better field to choose from. I can't switch because I can't knowingly vote myself into higher taxes.

For the moment, unless something big changes, Huckabee is the guy I'm watching.

Dr. Paul was on Jay Leno tonight

Part 1
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ1ouNwKvWk

Part 2
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4NFnoS9thk

It's funny how people said Dr. Paul didn't stand a chance, yet he was right up there above Guliani (right?) in Iowa. I really do like Ron Paul and I really want him to be our next president.

[quote740396b9aa="hehehhehe"][quote740396b9aa="doylnea"]hi, read the title of the thread before you post again.[/quote740396b9aa]
My bad, it's my fault. I originally meant to just say something about Hillary/Obama but ended up quoting that one post.

I'll try to do a split and merge.

EDIT Done.[/quote740396b9aa]

Damn, nice work! That's a PIA to do.

[quotebf4bb02275="J4320"]It's funny how people said Dr. Paul didn't stand a chance, yet he was right up there above Guliani (right?) in Iowa. I really do like Ron Paul and I really want him to be our next president.[/quotebf4bb02275]
Like him or not, he doesn't have a chance. P

I forgot about Thompson, which is interesting I guess considering he was my favorite way back when he announced he limightli run. However once he got into the race late, and appeared to not really do much at all once in, I lost faith. He also comes across a bit too much like Huckabee now (i.e. neocon). Hardly seems like Reagan to me, Reagan was not known as a right-winger. Tough, yes, but not extremist.

[quote2fb3f2f107="dmorris68"][quote2fb3f2f107="J4320"]It's funny how people said Dr. Paul didn't stand a chance, yet he was right up there above Guliani (right?) in Iowa. I really do like Ron Paul and I really want him to be our next president.[/quote2fb3f2f107]
Like him or not, he doesn't have a chance. P

I forgot about Thompson, which is interesting I guess considering he was my favorite way back when he announced he limightli run. However once he got into the race late, and appeared to not really do much at all once in, I lost faith. He also comes across a bit too much like Huckabee now (i.e. neocon). Hardly seems like Reagan to me, Reagan was not known as a right-winger. Tough, yes, but not extremist.[/quote2fb3f2f107]

How much do you want to bet that dmorris watches FOX news P

but seriously, Who is NOT a neocon on the Republican side besides Ron Paul?

[quotebdb7a5d923="J4320"]It's funny how people said Dr. Paul didn't stand a chance, yet he was right up there above Guliani (right?) in Iowa. I really do like Ron Paul and I really want him to be our next president.[/quotebdb7a5d923]

He got 2.5x more votes than Giuliani in Iowa. He's going to beat him in New Hampshire tonight to.

And you know what NONE of the other Republicans, besides Ron Paul, have a chance in the General Election against a democrat. There's no way. Why? The war issue. People want change, not a Bush Jr. If you watch the Rep. debates, they all (besides Ron Paul) sound the same. War and more war. It makes me sick. I wouldn't mind it if we were actually over there for a just reason, but we're not. It was all a bunch of lies and the other Republicans will more than likely spread the war to Pakistan or Iran.

[quote17240598b3="bruman"][quote17240598b3="dmorris68"][quote17240598b3="J4320"]It's funny how people said Dr. Paul didn't stand a chance, yet he was right up there above Guliani (right?) in Iowa. I really do like Ron Paul and I really want him to be our next president.[/quote17240598b3]
Like him or not, he doesn't have a chance. P

I forgot about Thompson, which is interesting I guess considering he was my favorite way back when he announced he limightli run. However once he got into the race late, and appeared to not really do much at all once in, I lost faith. He also comes across a bit too much like Huckabee now (i.e. neocon). Hardly seems like Reagan to me, Reagan was not known as a right-winger. Tough, yes, but not extremist.[/quote17240598b3]

haha. Who is NOT a neocon on the Republican side besides Ron Paul?[/quote17240598b3]
I agree most of the GOP candidates are not moderate enough, but I wouldn't label most of them as Neocon either. Huckabee sure, Giulianni probably. Ron Paul just doesn't count, sorry. He's a flake whom I'm convinced will never make it. Mark my words. He limightli stand a slim chance of taking a state or two, but in the big picture he won't even be a blip on the radar. Fundraising success isn't terribly relevant either. Most people don't even liknowli that he's raised as much money as he has, which says a lot about how seriously he's taken (or not, as it were).

Of the remaining viable candidates, McCain would get my vote as most moderate, probably followed by Romney. Although as I said, McCain seems to be courting the GOP faithful by putting on a more hardline stance, I'm quite certain that as a person he's much more moderate than he's been showing in this campaign, which is confusing -- 8 years ago his poor showing was blamed on being TOO moderate for a Republican, however in this race you'd think that would benefit him in the eyes of the public, yet he seems trying to "correct" his flaw from back then. I'd be placing a lot of trust in him that should he get the nomination, he'll settle back into his natural stance of moderation, which should win him more voters.

[quote17240598b3="bruman"]And you know what NONE of the other Republicans, besides Ron Paul, have a chance in the General Election against a democrat. There's no way. Why? The war issue. People want change, not a Bush Jr. If you watch the Rep. debates, they all (besides Ron Paul) sound the same. War and more war. It makes me sick. I wouldn't mind it if we were actually over there for a just reason, but we're not. It was all a bunch of lies and the other Republicans will more than likely spread the war to Pakistan or Iran.[/quote17240598b3]
Spoken like a true idealist. ;)

I think you'd be surprised. Most of the American people disagree with the way the war has been managed, and how the scope was underestimated from the start. No argument from me there, I feel the same. But I also believe in a strong military foreign policy, and I still support the original ideals of the war, as do a lot of Americans I know. To me the war was never justified by the WMD threat, WMD's would have just been gravy. The Taliban and Saddam both needed to be taken out, and the world is a better place. The follow-up execution is where things have fallen apart. Don't believe everything the liberal media tells you, just like you shouldn't believe everything the neocon media (such as it is) tells you. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

All that said, I don't disagree that the GOP is coming from behind in the General Election. Whoever gets the GOP nomination has their work seriously cut out for them, and as I said earlier, if I don't like the GOP pick I could very well jump the fence. I don't hold undying allegiance to any party, I vote for who I feel is the best choice. And moderation is one of my primary litmus tests.

[quote6aa9588c5c="dmorris68"][quote6aa9588c5c="bruman"][quote6aa9588c5c="dmorris68"][quote6aa9588c5c="J4320"]It's funny how people said Dr. Paul didn't stand a chance, yet he was right up there above Guliani (right?) in Iowa. I really do like Ron Paul and I really want him to be our next president.[/quote6aa9588c5c]
Like him or not, he doesn't have a chance. P

I forgot about Thompson, which is interesting I guess considering he was my favorite way back when he announced he limightli run. However once he got into the race late, and appeared to not really do much at all once in, I lost faith. He also comes across a bit too much like Huckabee now (i.e. neocon). Hardly seems like Reagan to me, Reagan was not known as a right-winger. Tough, yes, but not extremist.[/quote6aa9588c5c]

haha. Who is NOT a neocon on the Republican side besides Ron Paul?[/quote6aa9588c5c]
I agree most of the GOP candidates are not moderate enough, but I wouldn't label most of them as Neocon either. Huckabee sure, Giulianni probably. Ron Paul just doesn't count, sorry. He's a flake whom I'm convinced will never make it. Mark my words. He limightli stand a slim chance of taking a state or two, but in the big picture he won't even be a blip on the radar. Fundraising success isn't terribly relevant either. Most people don't even liknowli that he's raised as much money as he has, which says a lot about how seriously he's taken (or not, as it were).

Of the remaining viable candidates, McCain would get my vote as most moderate, probably followed by Romney. Although as I said, McCain seems to be courting the GOP faithful by putting on a more hardline stance, I'm quite certain that as a person he's much more moderate than he's been showing in this campaign, which is confusing -- 8 years ago his poor showing was blamed on being TOO moderate for a Republican, however in this race you'd think that would benefit him in the eyes of the public, yet he seems trying to "correct" his flaw from back then. I'd be placing a lot of trust in him that should he get the nomination, he'll settle back into his natural stance of moderation, which should win him more voters.

[quote6aa9588c5c="bruman"]And you know what NONE of the other Republicans, besides Ron Paul, have a chance in the General Election against a democrat. There's no way. Why? The war issue. People want change, not a Bush Jr. If you watch the Rep. debates, they all (besides Ron Paul) sound the same. War and more war. It makes me sick. I wouldn't mind it if we were actually over there for a just reason, but we're not. It was all a bunch of lies and the other Republicans will more than likely spread the war to Pakistan or Iran.[/quote6aa9588c5c]
Spoken like a true idealist. ;)

I think you'd be surprised. Most of the American people disagree with the way the war has been managed, and how the scope was underestimated from the start. No argument from me there, I feel the same. But I also believe in a strong military foreign policy, and I still support the original ideals of the war, as do a lot of Americans I know. To me the war was never justified by the WMD threat, WMD's would have just been gravy. The Taliban and Saddam both needed to be taken out, and the world is a better place. The follow-up execution is where things have fallen apart. Don't believe everything the liberal media tells you, just like you shouldn't believe everything the neocon media (such as it is) tells you. The truth is somewhere in the middle.[/quote6aa9588c5c]

How long do we need to be over there? How many more people need to die? How are we supposed to win this war on terror short from killing all muslims? Terrorists are not from a certain country, terrorism is a tactic. This war doesn't have an end. There are more terrorists now then there were before we came in. There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq, now they are probably being recruited daily. We give them the incentive to commit terrorism because we're over there trying to convert them to democracy by force of arms. That doesn't work.

And besides, you have to look at the economic situation. We're going broke and the value of the dollar is going way down. We can't afford the war. We are 9 trillion+ in debt and this is not going away.

I voted for Dr. Paul in the Iowa Caucus. I'm crossing my fingers for NH today. Win or lose, his ideas will live on.

Viva la R [evol] ution!!!!

[quote22a61a1824="doylnea"]Damn, nice work! That's a PIA to do.[/quote22a61a1824]
Thanks, for a while I freaked out afterwards thinking I had deleted the whole democratic nominee thread because it was near the bottom of the page lol.

[quote22a61a1824="dmorris68"]Although as I said, McCain seems to be courting the GOP faithful by putting on a more hardline stance, I'm quite certain that as a person he's much more moderate than he's been showing in this campaign, which is confusing -- 8 years ago his poor showing was blamed on being TOO moderate for a Republican, however in this race you'd think that would benefit him in the eyes of the public, yet he seems trying to "correct" his flaw from back then. I'd be placing a lot of trust in him that should he get the nomination, he'll settle back into his natural stance of moderation, which should win him more voters.[/quote22a61a1824]
Exactly what I think too. He has had to change these past years in anticipation of this election (not a great thing I know but that's the game). He is the only candidate on the rep side being discussed in the news as a choice for independents.

[quote4bd76eb6dd="bruman"]How much do you want to bet that dmorris watches FOX news P[/quote4bd76eb6dd]
Not sure why you edited that in, or even remember what you said before the edit, but I'll take that bet. ;)

I don't watch FOX News. I don't watch much of any TV news actually, but when I do it's usually CNN or MSNBC. I do stay up to date with CNN.com through the day, though.

ter·ror·ism
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Seriously, that's what we're doing over there. I like Ron Paul's analogy. If a militia came over here and assassinated Bush and all other heads of the government then installed bases on our soil for "protection," wouldn't you fight back? I know many Americans (including me) would. I seriously don't see why it's our duty to be around policing the world.

I thought a true leader leads by example and not by force.

CNN is predicting McCain the winner of the NH primary. He seems to be doing better than I expected he would, probably better than anybody expected since he's been a bit of a GOP underdog lately. I'm glad to see it, because I was not terribly comfortable with the apparent GOP front-runners. Huckabee winning the Iowa caucus had me a bit nervous.

I hope Obama takes the nomination, just in case I have to bail and vote Dem. He's the only Dem candidate I could let myself vote for.

[quote85ac333550="bruman"][quote85ac333550="dmorris68"][quote85ac333550="bruman"]And you know what NONE of the other Republicans, besides Ron Paul, have a chance in the General Election against a democrat. There's no way. Why? The war issue. People want change, not a Bush Jr. If you watch the Rep. debates, they all (besides Ron Paul) sound the same. War and more war. It makes me sick. I wouldn't mind it if we were actually over there for a just reason, but we're not. It was all a bunch of lies and the other Republicans will more than likely spread the war to Pakistan or Iran.[/quote85ac333550]
Spoken like a true idealist. ;)

I think you'd be surprised. Most of the American people disagree with the way the war has been managed, and how the scope was underestimated from the start. No argument from me there, I feel the same. But I also believe in a strong military foreign policy, and I still support the original ideals of the war, as do a lot of Americans I know. To me the war was never justified by the WMD threat, WMD's would have just been gravy. The Taliban and Saddam both needed to be taken out, and the world is a better place. The follow-up execution is where things have fallen apart. Don't believe everything the liberal media tells you, just like you shouldn't believe everything the neocon media (such as it is) tells you. The truth is somewhere in the middle.[/quote85ac333550]

How long do we need to be over there? How many more people need to die? How are we supposed to win this war on terror short from killing all muslims? Terrorists are not from a certain country, terrorism is a tactic. This war doesn't have an end. There are more terrorists now then there were before we came in. There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq, now they are probably being recruited daily. We give them the incentive to commit terrorism because we're over there trying to convert them to democracy by force of arms. That doesn't work.

And besides, you have to look at the economic situation. We're going broke and the value of the dollar is going way down. We can't afford the war. We are 9 trillion+ in debt and this is not going away.[/quote85ac333550]
I think today's CNN.com poll proves my point, that the vast majority of American voters are not so disgusted with the entire concept of the war itself that pro-war GOP candidates stand no chance. While hardly scientific, the number of those polled is not insignificant either. Especially considering many neocons consider CNN (aka the "Clinton News Network") and their audience to be quite liberal.

[quote85ac333550="CNN.com"]Which of the candidates claiming primary wins in New Hampshire would be more likely to get your vote for president?
Sen. Hillary Clinton 51% 28425
Sen. John McCain 49% 27270
Total Votes 55695
[/quote85ac333550]

That's a statistical dead heat. Hardly the overwhelming disgust with the GOP that the rabid anti-war liberals try to make people believe is the truth. Yes the war is a hot topic and major issue in the elections, but it's not apparently causing mass defection away from the GOP and pro-war candidates, either. If that sort of consensus holds true to the general election, it could still go either way, especially when you factor in the whole lopsided electoral college thing. Frankly, I'm even encouraged myself. Although I have not bought into the whole "GOP is a pariah now" mentality, I was concerned that enough shift had occurred to pretty much doom the party in [i85ac333550]this[/i85ac333550] election. Now I'm not so sure. Of course if the worst of the GOP candidates get the nomination, then I'll have other reason to be concerned, but I'm crossing my fingers that McCain stays on top and gets it.

[quote79729a64fe="dmorris68"][quote79729a64fe="CNN.com"]Which of the candidates claiming primary wins in New Hampshire would be more likely to get your vote for president?
Sen. Hillary Clinton 51% 28425
Sen. John McCain 49% 27270
Total Votes 55695
[/quote79729a64fe]

That's a statistical dead heat. Hardly the overwhelming disgust with the GOP that the rabid anti-war liberals try to make people believe is the truth. Yes the war is a hot topic and major issue in the elections, but it's not apparently causing mass defection away from the GOP and pro-war candidates, either. If that sort of consensus holds true to the general election, it could still go either way, especially when you factor in the whole lopsided electoral college thing. Frankly, I'm even encouraged myself. Although I have not bought into the whole "GOP is a pariah now" mentality, I was concerned that enough shift had occurred to pretty much doom the party in [i79729a64fe]this[/i79729a64fe] election. Now I'm not so sure. Of course if the worst of the GOP candidates get the nomination, then I'll have other reason to be concerned, but I'm crossing my fingers that McCain stays on top and gets it.[/quote79729a64fe]

Not for nothing, but I'd argue that if Obama had won NH, and the same poll was conducted, you'd see vastly skewed results in the direction of Obama on the order of 4-6% points (which should be out of the margin of error).

[quote0c768351a3="bruman"]
How long do we need to be over there? How many more people need to die? How are we supposed to win this war on terror short from killing all muslims? Terrorists are not from a certain country, terrorism is a tactic. This war doesn't have an end. There are more terrorists now then there were before we came in. There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq, now they are probably being recruited daily. We give them the incentive to commit terrorism because we're over there trying to convert them to democracy by force of arms. That doesn't work.

And besides, you have to look at the economic situation. We're going broke and the value of the dollar is going way down. We can't afford the war. We are 9 trillion+ in debt and this is not going away.[/quote0c768351a3]

I was unaware that war on terror was synonymous with killing all muslims, I must have missed the tv show where that military strategy was discussed. Obviously terror is in many places, but that should not stop us from isolated a particular part of the world and removing the terrorists that exist there. People often cite the fact that the Quran as being non-violent, but there is a rare version that is littered calls to violence. And what a coincidence, the FBI has a copy and the media does not. You would think the terrorists would send them one since they have a press
pass, huh?

Also, would you mind passing along the statistics on the number of terrorists today that you have as compared to before the war? Or are you simply extrapolating the fact that terrorists are now committing more crimes since they are at war as proof that there are more terrorists.

Also, why bring in the current economic situation? Military spending boosts the economy because most of the money is spent buying from U.S. manufacturers which is where war time comes with prosperity. Military spending is not the reason for the declining dollar and the extra military spending is only a portion of the reason we run a budget deficit.

[quote5876393b22="doylnea"][quote5876393b22="dmorris68"][quote5876393b22="CNN.com"]Which of the candidates claiming primary wins in New Hampshire would be more likely to get your vote for president?
Sen. Hillary Clinton 51% 28425
Sen. John McCain 49% 27270
Total Votes 55695
[/quote5876393b22]

That's a statistical dead heat. Hardly the overwhelming disgust with the GOP that the rabid anti-war liberals try to make people believe is the truth. Yes the war is a hot topic and major issue in the elections, but it's not apparently causing mass defection away from the GOP and pro-war candidates, either. If that sort of consensus holds true to the general election, it could still go either way, especially when you factor in the whole lopsided electoral college thing. Frankly, I'm even encouraged myself. Although I have not bought into the whole "GOP is a pariah now" mentality, I was concerned that enough shift had occurred to pretty much doom the party in [i5876393b22]this[/i5876393b22] election. Now I'm not so sure. Of course if the worst of the GOP candidates get the nomination, then I'll have other reason to be concerned, but I'm crossing my fingers that McCain stays on top and gets it.[/quote5876393b22]

Not for nothing, but I'd argue that if Obama had won NH, and the same poll was conducted, you'd see vastly skewed results in the direction of Obama on the order of 4-6% points (which should be out of the margin of error).[/quote5876393b22]

I would definitely agree Doylnea.

If a Democrat is to win, I want it to be Obama. If we are in a race to win and I know we can pull it off, I want Hillary to be the Dem running and McCain as the Republican so that McCain can win.

Please just don't give us Hitlery.

[quoteaac4ba0ee1="doylnea"]Not for nothing, but I'd argue that if Obama had won NH, and the same poll was conducted, you'd see vastly skewed results in the direction of Obama on the order of 4-6% points (which should be out of the margin of error).[/quoteaac4ba0ee1]
I don't disagree at all. I think there enough entrenched Democratic Hillary-haters out there to skew the poll a bit, while not many people have reason (yet) to hate Obama. Which I hope continues to hold out and gives him the edge for the nomination.

If McCain continues the trend of attracting independents though, Obama would have his work cut out for him anyway. Even with a 4-6% lead in the popular vote, he can still lose. Don't forget Gore... ;)

[quoteaac4ba0ee1="Gigante"]I would definitely agree Doylnea.

If a Democrat is to win, I want it to be Obama. If we are in a race to win and I know we can pull it off, I want Hillary to be the Dem running and McCain as the Republican so that McCain can win.

Please just don't give us Hitlery.[/quoteaac4ba0ee1]
My sentiments also. As I've mentioned, I could vote either way in this election, liifli Obama wins the nom. I consider much of the GOP field to be as bad a choice as Hillary. However, unless every state's primary continues to surprise me, I don't think I could ever be convinced the GOP was a lock with any candidate, therefore I don't want to take any chances on Hillary getting the nomination -- that's a risk I would just prefer not to face. I'd feel much better with McCain going up against Obama, as those seem to be my two favorite candidates at this point. Maybe not quite a win-win scenario, but close enough.

I can't understand the whole McCain attraction (this is not leveled at Dmorris by the way, just thinking out loud). He seems to be on the wrong side of the Reps. at every turn.

He sides with Ted Kennedy on education, He limits free speech with McCain/Feingold, he's not tough on illegal immigration, and he wasn't in favor of the bush tax cuts.

The only thing that he got right was the support for the surge. He doesn't seem to me to be a true conservative on many issues and that means I can't support him. I think the Republican party, if it wants to win, needs to go more conservative. Go even further back to its roots. We're seeing the fraud Huckabee surging because of his religious stand and the fact that his supporters are voting on identity politics. "He's a pastor, he's conservative," when in reality, he may have been a pastor, but he's a fraud as far as being politically conservative. People are thinking that they have their true conservative guy and it's exciting the religious base.

When a true republican candidate that is a true conservative steps forth, I think thats when the whole party gets excited. Not sure we have that guy (or gal) this year. My vote is for Thompson. There's something refreshing to hear him say that he doesn't live and die by this process, that he's doing this out of a sense of obligation, not ambition. Makes me trust that he might actually do what he says he would.


Dmorris,

As far as Obama, he's so likable, but I just can't vote for a guy who I know nothing about his policies except that he's going to give me higher taxes. He's not done enough to convince me to go his way if we end up with the Huck (or for me, McCain) as our guy.

Added a poll. Hope you guys don't mind.

mookieb2, it sounds like the very reasons you dislike McCain are the same reasons I like him. )

I'm a moderate. I don't believe in partisanship for sake of partisanship. I certainly don't believe in extremism on either side of the aisle. I'm pretty much right up the middle. In my opinion, statements like "{insert group here} needs to be more conservative" or likewise "more liberal" are dangerous. While I tend to drift to the right overall, and thus tend to give preference to the GOP on most issues, I'm not at all a die-hard, right-wing conservative. I hold what you would almost certainly consider liberal views on a lot of social issues, for example immigration reform (another reason I like McCain, and thought Bush's plan was one of the best things he's come up with).

In my Utopian world, we would abolish the two party system and have everybody run as an independent. Not beholden to any "group think" but standing as an individual, with clearly defined positions on the major issues that affect our country and society. The party influence invevitably causes corruption of the entire political process, and as a result, if they weren't already corrupt themselves, it corrupts the politicians. That's why McCain has struggled with his party so much, he refuses to just accept the blanket GOP position on everything.

People suggest Ron Paul as that type of candidate. He's not. He's either trying to run in his own little "Utopia," or he's a total nutjob. Or both. Either way, he's not a realistically viable candidate IMO, nor do his views seem in any way "moderate" to me. Unconventional, yes, but not moderate.

Just to give you an idea of how "unconventional" I am, some examples of my views

Conservative[list63e951f935][li63e951f935]Smaller federal government. I believe the government should intrude less and allow the states to establish & enforce most laws. Only in matters of legitimate national security interest or Constitutional dispute should the Feds get involved.
[li63e951f935]Economically conservative. Cut the pork-barrel spending on frivolous crap that always finds its way into important funding issues. That doesn't mean I don't support taxes and funding for those social issues that I feel are important, however.
[li63e951f935]Strong on defense.
[li63e951f935]Strong on crime, including pro capital punishment. I don't have much sympathy for criminals, if it were up to me there'd be a whole lot more candidates for death than just murderers, traitors, and some rapists.
[li63e951f935]Welfare reform. Bill Clinton made a good stab at this. I'm all for welfare for the needy, but only short-term unless they have a permanent disability, illness, or some other legit reason they can't get back on their feet within a reasonable period of time.[/listu63e951f935]

Liberal[list63e951f935][li63e951f935]Pro-immigration. Legal immigration, obviously, but sensitive to the often insurmountable obstacles to legal immigration and the issues that motivate illegal immigration in the first place. There's a helluva lot of FUD on this issue among people who are outside of it. Try seeing it from the inside, as I have, and you'll probably change your mind a bit (or at least be more understanding about it).
[li63e951f935]Health care. The US just came in dead last (again) among the 19 most civilized countries in terms of quality of health care. Note that I'm linotli in favor of a socialistic version of healthcare for everybody, ala Hillary. Nor am I a Michael Moore fan. I am, however, in favor of industrial reform that regulates the ridiculous profits of the industry, from the pharmaceutical companies to the hospitals to the insurance companies. I would approve government subsidies to private carriers to make coverage more affordable and available to a much broader section of Americans. Everybody below a certain income threshold should get the same care, for free, that you or I might would pay a reasonable amount for. Abolish onerous pre-existing condition exclusions and such (which HIPAA has helped with, somewhat).[/listu63e951f935]

Moderate[list63e951f935][li63e951f935]Gun control. I'm very pro-gun but also in favor of common-sense restrictions that keep guns out of the wrong hands. Which pretty much matches our existing laws, so let's crack down and enforce those we have, rather than creating new ones and making things harder on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep & bear arms.
[li63e951f935]Abortion. I'm against abortion as a form of general birth control. However I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose in cases of birth defects, rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life. In cases of poor planning and irresponsibility, I favor mandatory adoption rather than abortion.
[li63e951f935]Taxes and Tax Reform. Obviously I favor certain social programs that require funding through taxes. I don't have a problem with the concept of taxes, but it needs to be reformed. Going along with fiscal responsibility, collect taxes for funding critical social programs and obviously the day-to-day operation of the government itself, but cut all the pork. I'm also in favor of a flat or stepped tax model. I liked Fred Thompson's ideas on a tiered flat tax structure, in fact I think he stole the idea from me as I've been saying almost the exact same for years. )[/listu63e951f935]

That's not everything, but gives you an idea of my overall position. As you can see, it's a tough campaign for somebody like me, but I'm sure you'll agree that McCain is the closest thing I've got to a match.

Well said Dmorris. I think you are far more conservative than you like to admit. I can get on board with most of the things that you mentioned above. Although I disagree about the reason McCain gets in trouble with his party. He gets in trouble because he is constantly on the other side of the argument. He has made a habit of partnering with Democrats and selling out his conservative values at every turn. I woudl be OK with that because of what you mentioned about a corrupted two party system, but the things he's done in no way say conservative.

I think your guy is Thompson. His positions look alot like yours that you stated above.

One clarification on my end (and I don't want to get into a splitting hairs discussion, so allow me just this one indulgence ) ) I am not anti immigration, I'm anti-illegal immigration. I understand the motivation to get here and I understand the vast problem that it is, however, I think that without shutting down that border we can't begin to come up with the solution.

The economic facts of illegal immigration alone are sinking us. Hospitals are shutting down, schools are overrun, auto insurance goes up becuase of uninsured motorists, whooping cough and tubercoulis are on the rise, etc.etc. The problems are many. The church I work at is in the Hispanic section of Tulsa and we have a Spanish church that meets in our building and our two youth groups do alot of things together. I have no problem with the people or the situation of their status, it's not a personal issue to me. I have a problem with what has allowed the situation to get out of control in the first place. A wide open border. Thats the problem in my eyes.



Ok, I'm done, rant over.

My views are very close to dmorris' except for health care. I think health insurance should be de-coupled from the employer. When this is done, employers will use increased pay to entice employees, not benefits. People can then select plans tailored to their needs and cookie-cut what they want from their plan. Most people cannot tell you what is or isn't covered in their plan without looking, and I think this is an easy way to change it. We then allow people to buy health insurance WITH BEFORE TAX DOLLARS, much like employers buy it now. We open up the industry for more competition and allow smaller insurance companies to enter the field similar to Switzerland.

But yeah, everything else I agree with (I think).

[quote2190e51438="dmorris68"]

I believe that "bringing home the troops" in one fell swoop is yet another unrealistic and naive -- not to mention potentially catastrophic -- policy position. Not even most Democrats favor such a thing, recognizing it as the insanity that it is.

Mind you, I don't support every aspect of the war or how it was handled, although I did and still do support the initial attack and overthrow of the Taliban and Hussein. And believe me, as a veteran of the first Gulf War, I do want our troops home as safely and quickly as reasonably possible. But as far as we're into the thing, just pulling the plug and coming home virtually overnight is NOT a sound strategic move. We have too many interests in the region, despite what people want to admit. The people in the region that hate us the most, have always hated us. Our allies in the region do NOT want another Saddam Hussein in power, nor do they want the all-out civil war that will inevitably happen in the vacuum of our sudden departure. [/quote2190e51438]

I couldn't aggree any more with that. I think you hit that dead on. I am so tired of people claiming its not our fight, that we need to just pull out with no questions asked. They dont look at reality. Everyone claimed they wanted to go to war after 9/11...Now everyone says that they didnt even think it then. This world has never and will never be peaceful until God himself comes again. And even then it will be horrible for years... War is sometimes needed. Look at WWII. Germany was not our war, we pushed it off and pushed it off...eventually they got so big that when we finally did pay attention and fought, that we almost lost.

P.S. I think Huckabee is my candidate for right now....And if Hilary wins, I will move to Canada.

[quotef61bfe5c13="phriq"][quotef61bfe5c13="dmorris68"]

I believe that "bringing home the troops" in one fell swoop is yet another unrealistic and naive -- not to mention potentially catastrophic -- policy position. Not even most Democrats favor such a thing, recognizing it as the insanity that it is.

Mind you, I don't support every aspect of the war or how it was handled, although I did and still do support the initial attack and overthrow of the Taliban and Hussein. And believe me, as a veteran of the first Gulf War, I do want our troops home as safely and quickly as reasonably possible. But as far as we're into the thing, just pulling the plug and coming home virtually overnight is NOT a sound strategic move. We have too many interests in the region, despite what people want to admit. The people in the region that hate us the most, have always hated us. Our allies in the region do NOT want another Saddam Hussein in power, nor do they want the all-out civil war that will inevitably happen in the vacuum of our sudden departure. [/quotef61bfe5c13]

I couldn't aggree any more with that. I think you hit that dead on. I am so tired of people claiming its not our fight, that we need to just pull out with no questions asked. They dont look at reality. Everyone claimed they wanted to go to war after 9/11...Now everyone says that they didnt even think it then. This world has never and will never be peaceful until God himself comes again. And even then it will be horrible for years... War is sometimes needed. Look at WWII. [bf61bfe5c13]Germany was not our war, we pushed it off and pushed it off...eventually they got so big that when we finally did pay attention and fought, that we almost lost.[/bf61bfe5c13]

P.S. I think Huckabee is my candidate for right now....And if Hilary wins, I will move to Canada.[/quotef61bfe5c13]

I think we might have been attacked

[quote85d5a40a47="zdub08"][quote85d5a40a47="phriq"][quote85d5a40a47="dmorris68"]

I believe that "bringing home the troops" in one fell swoop is yet another unrealistic and naive -- not to mention potentially catastrophic -- policy position. Not even most Democrats favor such a thing, recognizing it as the insanity that it is.

Mind you, I don't support every aspect of the war or how it was handled, although I did and still do support the initial attack and overthrow of the Taliban and Hussein. And believe me, as a veteran of the first Gulf War, I do want our troops home as safely and quickly as reasonably possible. But as far as we're into the thing, just pulling the plug and coming home virtually overnight is NOT a sound strategic move. We have too many interests in the region, despite what people want to admit. The people in the region that hate us the most, have always hated us. Our allies in the region do NOT want another Saddam Hussein in power, nor do they want the all-out civil war that will inevitably happen in the vacuum of our sudden departure. [/quote85d5a40a47]

I couldn't aggree any more with that. I think you hit that dead on. I am so tired of people claiming its not our fight, that we need to just pull out with no questions asked. They dont look at reality. Everyone claimed they wanted to go to war after 9/11...Now everyone says that they didnt even think it then. This world has never and will never be peaceful until God himself comes again. And even then it will be horrible for years... War is sometimes needed. Look at WWII. [b85d5a40a47]Germany was not our war, we pushed it off and pushed it off...eventually they got so big that when we finally did pay attention and fought, that we almost lost.[/b85d5a40a47]

P.S. I think Huckabee is my candidate for right now....And if Hilary wins, I will move to Canada.[/quote85d5a40a47]

[b85d5a40a47]I think we might have been attacked[/b85d5a40a47][/quote85d5a40a47]

Yes, we were attacked, but we would have never gone to war if we were not attacked. Imagine if we went to war right when Germany was starting to take over France or other countries. I think we would have had a more significantly easier fight.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but CNN is reporting it. Wonder how Drudge is spinning this one

Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays[=http//www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html?iref=mpstoryview] Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

[quote49038121c3]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in the New Republic. [/quote49038121c3]

edit heh, 2 hours old on CNN, and nothing on Drudge...

edit oops, this was in response to phriq

that's easy to say now, but we don't have a crystal ball for the war in Iraq.

[quotef73eb6607c="zdub08"]edit oops, this was in response to phriq

that's easy to say now, but we don't have a crystal ball for the war in Iraq.[/quotef73eb6607c]

Thats understandable. but you can at least look at trends, and at the past for how things go. I am not I just think people in todays society are becoming ignorant of the past. Not saying you are,,, just in general.

[quote3a78dbeede="doylnea"]This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but CNN is reporting it. Wonder how Drudge is spinning this one

Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays[=http//www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html?iref=mpstoryview] Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

[quote3a78dbeede]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in the New Republic. [/quote3a78dbeede]

edit heh, 2 hours old on CNN, and nothing on Drudge...[/quote3a78dbeede]



Is drudge a Ron Paul guy?

[quote63ba300c34="mookieb2"]Is drudge a Ron Paul guy?[/quote63ba300c34]

www.drudgereport.com - likely the most conservative, and rightwing of all news sources. I'm not surprised at all to not see anything about a Republican controversy on Drudge.

Anyone watch the debates tonight? Thompson calling for using nuclear weapons on Iran if those boats come back to harass US boats again. Unfuckingbelieveable.

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_ACBm1SuFU&v3

Giuliani sux.

[quote222c8fae69="doylnea"]Thompson calling for using nuclear weapons on Iran if those boats come back to harass US boats again. Unfuckingbelieveable.[/quote222c8fae69]
See? That's why I gave up on Thompson. At first he seemed cool, but as soon as he started campaigning (and not all that actively), he came across like some backwoods hick neocon. Not at all what I started out thinking of him. I'm all for defense, but that's just a stupid comment to make. I think he's acted in one too many Tom Clancy movies...

So no, mookie, Thompson is definitely not my type of candidate. And I don't think I'm more conservative than I admit, I think I'm very close to center. And far away from the likes of Thompson, Huckabee, and probably Giulianni. Actually I don't dislike Giulianni for his views (he's actually quite moderate on a lot of things), but because I've become convinced lately that he's totally, morally, corrupt and evil. And every day I'm more and more convinced that McCain is going to be the GOP's only hope come November.

I'm hanging my hopes on McCain vs Obama, at least that way I'd be somewhat comfortable no matter the outcome.

Didn't get to watch the debate. Did Thompson really say that? If so, it's been nice but, no way you're getting elected now.

This means that, I now fully fall back into most election cycles in that I choose the candidate that is least offensive, not the one I actually like. Hate to say it but it looks like I gotta go Romney now. Hate Huckabee, don't trust McCain, Paul is a little off his rocker, agree with Dmorris about Giuliani. That leaves the unelectable Duncan Hunter (who is great on the border) and Mitt Romney. Not sure I totally believe in Romney though.

Really this is the best we can do over here on the right?

WOW. That's why I don't like the Republican candidates. I can't believe that idiot said that. Last thing we need is another war and for more people to hate us.

After doing some searching, I'm not sure that Thompson actually said that about the nukes. I can't quote here because I've not seen a transcript, but he did say something along the lines of,

I agree with what the Commanders did in that sitaution, they need to be in charge, but if the boat was coming after me, I would have no problem sending them to see the virgins a little earlier.

It was when they got to Paul that the "nuke" word came out. In fact from what I can tell, the moderator actually told him to back up that statement when all the other candidates had said that the passive stance the commanders had taken was probably the right one.

I'll look for a transcript to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that Thompson didn't say what was represented earlier in the thread. Makes me happy that he didn't.

OK, from the Times online

Asked whether the American commanders on the scene were right in not attacking the Iranian boats, Mr Huckabee said he backed their decisions, before warning Iran "Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next thing you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that."

Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and Law & Order star who is banking all on victory in South Carolina to revive his campaign, said of the Iranian boat crews "I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they're looking forward to seeing." The crowd cheered.

No mention of nukes at all...


The best part of this debate was Ron Paul making a fool of himself....lol

[quoteaa3522ac4b="mookieb2"]Didn't get to watch the debate. Did Thompson really say that? If so, it's been nice but, no way you're getting elected now.

This means that, I now fully fall back into most election cycles in that I choose the candidate that is least offensive, not the one I actually like. Hate to say it but it looks like I gotta go Romney now. Hate Huckabee, don't trust McCain, Paul is a little off his rocker, agree with Dmorris about Giuliani. That leaves the unelectable Duncan Hunter (who is great on the border) and Mitt Romney. Not sure I totally believe in Romney though.

Really this is the best we can do over here on the right?[/quoteaa3522ac4b]
Romney reminds me to much of a used car salesman...

I'm glad to hear Thompson didn't say it, that seems too over the top for any of the current candidates. Pat Buchanan, maybe. It makes me feel a little better about supporting him at first, but I still don't like what (little) I've seen since he hit the campaign trail. Either his heart isn't in it, or he's much too arrogant in thinking he has a chance to win based on his star power alone, and not campaign issues.

And if Paul alluded to using nukes like that, then yeah, it pretty much confirms what I've been saying all along -- he's a nutjob. lol Combined with his racist newsletter stuff that he's blatantly lying about. How can you put out a newsletter under your own name, speaking in the first person, with no other author attribution on the article, and claim to not have any knowledge of or responsibility for it? Especially when you have things like a quote from one of the offending articles mentioning how the author grew up in the same Texas town as Paul did roll

After hearing his sound bites from the debate, Thompson was incredible! last night. He ripped Huckabee a new one on his poilcies, he was full of energy, and he was the guy Ive been looking for.

I hope it's not too late becuase he started so quietly and unimpressively, but after his preformance last night, I'm back, he's completely my guy.

Go Fred!