| Name: |
MartiniMan
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Romney on a roll........
|
|
Date:
|
1/11/2012 12:09:12 PM
|
Unless something strange and unexpected happens it appears to me that Romney is gong to be the GOP nominee. A couple of things I find interesting about this situation. First, my $1,000 per hour lobbyist (who is a black lawyer with a smarmy, overpriced DC law firm) told me a month ago Romney was going to win and he had already joined the Reaganites for Romney club. I told him I was keeping my powder dry and he looked at me like I was a knave.....which it appears I may have been. Secondly, I can't figure Ron Paul out. He has no problem going after the other candidates but almost seems to be embracing Romney. Perhaps he thinks the same thing and is looking for a prominent speaking slot at the convention? Don't quite know for sure but it is quite the mystery to me.
I am still convinced of all the viable candidates the Oblamer campaign would prefer to run against Romney. There are way too many ways for them to make Romney appear more like the Messiah than not, even if it is based not on his current positions but his past ones. While I don't think Romney is exactly another McCain he is way too close for my tastes. And this from a guy that voted for Romney in the GOP primary in 2008.........
|
| Name: |
Barneget
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Romney on a roll........
|
|
Date:
|
1/11/2012 10:54:01 PM
|
He will get my support in the event the other 2 governors currently in the race are unsuccessful in their bid for the nomination. I think with 2 states in, 17 delegates in hand against nearly 1400 required, it is way too early to put the crown on Romneys head. And, with the way things are rolling, Dr. Kookoopants (Luap Nor, the name that can't be typed for fear of his followers overwhelming the website) could be a spoiler, opening the way to a late entry, or possibly a brokered convention.
|
| Name: |
buzzbuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Romney on a roll........
|
|
Date:
|
1/12/2012 12:02:00 AM
|
I agree that it's still to early. I will vote for whoever gets the nomination but I will still back Newt until that time comes.
|
| Name: |
lotowner
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Romney on a roll........
|
|
Date:
|
1/12/2012 7:15:32 AM
|
Ron Paul, best "FREE", hired gun the Demos could ask for and may as a third party (remember Ross P) candidate give His Excellency a second term.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Romney on a roll........
|
|
Date:
|
1/12/2012 8:11:52 AM
|
Don't disagree at all but unless all but one of the remaining alternatives to Romney drop out they will simply split that vote and Romney will continue to rack up meager wins in the next two primaries (SC and FL). I do think this will extend beyond Super Tuesday which is OK by me. As the primaries continue we get lots of free press and my hope as the race crystalizes the candidates will once again turn their criticism toward the deserving Messiah.
|
| Name: |
Jaybird
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Romney on a roll........
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2012 12:21:46 AM
|
Please explain why you think Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. I understand the mainstream media may portray him in a harsh light but after looking into the character and person of Dr Paul I have found that he is a true conservative who shares my concern about the growth of the national debt. Many say they are concerned about his foreign policy, however I feel his service in the military speaks for itself. Who would you rather have as commander in chief, the veteran or the man who went to Canada to avoid the draft. Having been in Congress since the 1970's he served on the banking committee,and currently serves on the Financial Services Committee. Rep. Paul serves as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. Who better to understand how to slow our over spending. As I see it paul is the only candidate to espouse true conservative values and he has a decades long voting record to prove it. Please help me understand what Republicans see in Romney. I don't get it
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yes, Foreign Policy
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2012 9:58:06 AM (updated 1/15/2012 10:25:38 AM)
|
He is living in a dream world if he thinks he can put hs head in the sand and ignore the rest of the world. Guaranteed at the ivory soap level of confidence that the miscreants of the world would wreak havoc, knowing we would just look the oher way.
Paul's foreign policy is the singe reason I will not vote for hm in the primary and would have a great deal of dificulty deciding whether to vote for him in the general.
|
| Name: |
Jaybird
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yes, Foreign Policy
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2012 11:17:00 AM
|
Well I am no expert but i think we have the most powerful armed forces in the world. What he has proposed is not cutting the military but cutting the people who profit from military spending. The US spent $687 billion in 2009 on the military. Or nearest competition China spent a paltry $114 billion. In fact you have to total the next 17 countries together to surpass our spending. Isn't it time we could discuss some cost saving measures before we go broke policing the world. Please don't forget that our military technology is far superior to those 17 other countries. I believe we have room to trim the fat and still be extremely effective.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yes, Foreign Policy
|
|
Date:
|
1/15/2012 5:59:29 PM
|
It is his policy, not efforts to trim the defense budget. There are some savings that could be realized in defense, but it his stated intention to retreat to within our borders and set up our defenses here that is ludicrous.
It is in our national interest to project power into other places and to fight any wars there. How would you like it if going ot on the lake risked being killed by a sniper? The threat of global domination by the radical Islamists becomes more legitimate if they are allowed to conquer with impunity. The cowards in Europe (with a couple of notable exceptions) rely on us to hold the ragheads at bay. Which is worse? Spending money to keep a military presence closer to them and support our allies? Or removing our support and forcing them to defend themselves? On the surface the second option seems better - but the Europeans are neither willing nor able to defend themselves.
So if Ron Paul were to get his way it wouldn't be long before the other side of the pond would be known as the Islamist European Union, and the Taliban would be blowing up St Peter's Basilica, Notre Dame, and the Sisyene Chapel like they did the Buddhas in Afghanistan.
If you want to save money in defense, have Congress listen to the generals instead of forcing DoD to buy weapons they neither need nor want.
|
| Name: |
Jaybird
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yes, Foreign Policy
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2012 12:20:31 AM
|
You seem to be quite knowledgeable about our foreign policy. However I don't understand your fervor towards islamic nations. The very allies you say we should defend are the ones who attacked us. Most of the 911 bombers were from Saudi Arabia. Most in detention at Guantanamo are from Yemen. We have never placed economic sanctions on either country or publicly chastised them for supporting terrorist groups. On the other hand we are on the cusp of invading Iran. We will be fully involved in three wars. With fighting currently occurring in the Sudan, Libya, and who knows where else. Meanwhile we are expected to sacrifice more and more liberties at home. What are we so afraid of and why? I have zero thoughts of being struck by a snipers shot while wake boarding through Kowaliga. That is thanks to all the various law enforcement agencies we already have. 10 years in operation and homeland security hasn't spared us any major catastrophes. Two terrorist plots were foiled however thanks to patriotic citizens. The underwear bomber and the shoe bomber both were taken by persons flying with them. We are strong. A terriorist in a turban has less chance in Al than Islamic soldier at Ft Hood( no guns allowed there). Why sacrifice anything? Is our constitution no longer valid? For those of us who are Christians, how long do we allow murder in our name? Does the command to love thy enemy not apply to us? As Americans are not all men created equal? We reap what we sow. Please help me to understand your point of view.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yes, Foreign Policy
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2012 12:39:19 AM (updated 1/16/2012 12:53:49 AM)
|
In due time I will answer most of your questions, but it is too late tonight.
You wonder why I single out Islam? Are you blind and deaf?
A few things...I didn't say that we should be defending Saudi or Yemen, I was talking about Europe. And besides, just because the terrorists came from those countries that doesn't make them state sponsored terrorists. The evidence that Iran is sponsoring them, however, is strong.
You can't say that DHS has not foiled any terror plots any more than I can say they did. Compare it to a railroad crossing warning light and bell. It is there, but you don't know how many car-train collisions it avoids.
I have a miltary background and look at foreign policy in very simplistic terms. Negotiate from strength. A nation's power is useless unless that nation is willing to use it. Our national interest sometimes requires us to do uncomfortable things. Backing down from a tinhorn dictator will gain us the reputation as a coward nation and embolden those who heretofore didn't try anything becase they knew we would kick the chit out of them.
Go ahead and live in your altruistic world while the rest of us try to ensure you aren't forced to bow to the east and "pray" multiple times per day.
That's all for tonight. I may or may not take it up again in the morning, because it is obvious you will never understand how the cow eats the cabbage.
|
| Name: |
Jaybird
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Ron Paul , Foreign Policy
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2012 12:49:01 AM
|
I looked up Ron Paul's position on foreign policy and he doesn't claim to withdraw to our borders. I fact in last weekends debate he specifically stated that he intended to end non constitutional wars and stop military profiteering.Beside who would you want as commander in chief, the veteran or the guy who ran to France. The following is from Paul's website.
|
| Name: |
Jaybird
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yes, Foreign Policy
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2012 1:06:18 AM
|
I think you mistake me for a Liberal Jane Fonda type. I feel that we should utterly destroy our enemies, flatten their villages and make sure they don't ever return. Unfortunately overwhelming force and declarations of war are not what this is about. This is about big business, and not just oil. In the McCarthy era we were taught to be very afraid the Communists were coming. Now its Islamic radicals. As for me and mine I have the weapons to defend us from those who seek to take them. Why would I want the government to pay Blackwater to do it for me? Never seen a cow nibble at corn.
|
| Name: |
Jaybird
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Ron Paul
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2012 1:38:06 AM
|
Did you know that as a percentage of total military donation receipts Ron Paul has 71% of the republican total. Looks like the military support him.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Ron Paul , Foreign Policy
|
|
Date:
|
1/16/2012 10:06:57 PM
|
Just watched the latest debate. Your boy is an idiot.
|
| Name: |
Jaybird
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Ron Paul , Foreign Policy
|
|
Date:
|
1/17/2012 12:35:58 AM
|
Hate that I missed it. Who was the sponsor? I doubt he got equal air time. Are you still dismissing his foreign policy? Do you not feel that he has some valid points on the constitution?
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Indiana Lakes
»
Hardy Lake
Login
|
Home
