Jump to content

DaGreatOne

Members
  • Posts

    3,307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DaGreatOne

  1. Economic Left/Right: -3.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13 Just about where I thought I'd be.
  2. Looks like those ads are paying off. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/huc...iowa/index.html Just saw on CNN that he was at 18% in a Iowa poll. The article also mentions him in a dead heat with Romney in another poll. Might just sneak up on everyone. He has about 40 days to play catch up.
  3. Yeah I saw the ad and I thought it was great. I've always wondered why Huckabee hasn't gotten more traction in this campaign. You would think he would be the darling of Christian Conservatives since he is a pastor himself. He seems like a good guy too. While I obviously would want a Dem to win the presidency I would not mind him at all.
  4. Tell that to Western Europe. Your right though we should have let Bin Laden continue living in the safe haven that was Afghanistan and let Al-Qaeda get stronger. This is what I cant stand about Paul supporters, they oppose all wars. Wars are a necessary evil that need to be fought from time to time. Now I can see why you oppose the Iraq War because it was a war that was fought under false pretenses and has made our the world less safe. I can also see how you oppose the U.S. sending covert operations like they did in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's to try to knock down governments not favorable to the U.S. but to say look through history and say that interventionism has caused more problems is a farce. In some instances yes but in a lot of instances its made us safer.
  5. Sixty percent (60%) of America?s Likely Voters oppose giving every child born in the United States a $5,000 savings bond, or ?baby bond.? A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 27% support the concept suggested on Friday by Senator Hillary Clinton. You rightwingers can sleep well tonight. The communists wont be taking your money to improve the education of America.
  6. I'm suprised Sam Brownback hasnt gotten more traction from the Christian Conservatives since he is very socially conservative. Could it be because he is Catholic?
  7. Kinda like the cops that work the Dolphin Stadium parking lot during football season. These people, at best, are fishfan25. Actually those are off duty details. Meaning there doing that on the side to earn some extra money. That probably was unnecessary use of force but if people would just listen to cops and comply he wouldnt have gotten tased. You dont mess with cops. In fact that reminds me of work. I work for a retailer as loss prevention and we went out to make a stop and the guy tried to run from us and started resisting so we struggled with him until we got him under control to put cuffs on him. If dude would have come back in with us peacefully he would have been let off with a Notice to Appear in court instead of winding up in the County jail for resisting a merchant arrest. It pays to listen and comply.
  8. Greencan is talking about the GOP as if he was a Republican. He's a f***ing liberal Democrat! You don't remember who appointed him, do you? Who is Ronald Reagan for $300?
  9. I agree that Warner doesn't go on Hillary's ticket after telling people he is running for Senate. If that was a possibility, he would have never run in the first place. He has too much respect for Virginians and is really well liked here to do that to them. Exactly. I can see someone like Evan Bayh getting the nomination for VP on a Hilary ticket.
  10. Either way it wont make a difference one way or the other.
  11. I just hope he puts out a Book-on-CD so I can finally solve my insomnia. :lol I read a headline on Jonathan Martin's republican campaign blog. A title of an entry from the debate was Ron Paul: Laughingstock Appropriate. :lol I find it funny how now you are using blogs to back up your side. Should I post one of Ron Paul's thousands of supporting blogs and internet sites to back up his side? Zomg! But the internet is useless! I'm not using it to back anything up, I'm using it to show what people thought of him after the debate. A laughing stock. You're the one who came in here with nothing legitimate to say other than posting an Opus cominc (which I found funny when I read it months ago) and posted how he pit you to sleep. It'd be another thing if you actually brought something of substance to it instead of just trolling. :lol @ 'thousands of supporting blogs and internet sites' It'd be great if a Paul supporter could post anything showing why they actually think this guy should be our president besides a) Wanting to pull totally out of Iraq b) the Internet support (which has nothing to do with the candidate) and c) straw polls (which, again, has nothing to do with the candidate) See ya in '08 when Paul is a distant 6th or 7th in the primaries. What a candidate! Like it really matters. Ron Paul probably won't be the next president, so I am not all up in arms. It's all good. But your reasoning is wrong. I am not a supporter of Ron Paul because he simply wants to withdraw from Iraq, in fact, I have no problem with us staying in Iraq (not that my or YOUR opinion truly matters in this topic). I am a supporter of Ron Paul because he is bringing "new" ideas to the campaign of less government and less taxes. I own a business and this matters greatly to my every day life. I want someone who will spend the HUGE amount of money I give to the government in an efficient manner. At this point, Ron Paul is the only candidate I trust with my money. He has shown that he is fiscally responsible and won't blow my money on needless government programs. Please, I implore and beg you to give me one reason why I should trust Fred Thompson with my money more than Ron Paul. What does Fred bring to the table?? I beg (and truly hope) you for an answer, but I am confident you will not have one, and that is the problem and the reason I support Ron Paul. All I want is less government. Anytime I have to deal with the government it's not a fun experience. The IRS, the DMV, the dept. of education that has the children in this nation ranked so low compared to everyone else. The FBI, CIA, dept. of security that we spent BILLIONS on but FAILED us in a miserable way. Failed us on 9-11-2001. I spend my money to protect the people in this nation and they failed us. Guess what? I don't trust a big government anymore. You do. Good for you. I trust myself and want someone to lead this country who believes in the people, not the elected - douchebag - ACTOR - politicians who are all the same cookie cutter SOBs. Rudy, Romney, Fred, Hilary, Obama, Edwards they are all the same A holes. Tell me how they differ? yea they may differ slightly in some topic, but they are all politicians/ ACTORS that I don't trust and why should I? What reason do I have to trust the highest elected politician? I trust myself to make a difference in my OWN G'damn life. Get the F out of my life government, and stop deciding how I spend 20% of my money on the weak. I am sick and f***ing tired of spending my money supporting weak and pathetic people in this country. I am sick of paying a huge amount of taxes to people I DO NOT trust. I want a politician who believes in the republican point of view - Less government and less taxes. F JFK. This is a different time period and we need a different P.O.V. That is what the Republican party is supposed to be about, but the only one who preaches it on a daily basis is Ron Paul. Convince me otherwise and I will change my vote to anyone you want. I am sick of wasting my hard earned money. Damn right F the sick and disabled!! F the children without healthcare!! Eliminate the department of education, F it will teach ourselves! We dont need no FBI, CIA, or DHS, we can protects ourselves with our guns!! No government will run this sh*t ourselves!!
  12. Just got cancelled. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070814/tv_nm/...cFGE9IALgRpMhkF
  13. If anyone has seen the show The Shield, I'm sure the police will be hitting back hard to show that they are still in control.
  14. I take back the Wasserman-Schultz pick, though I am a fan I forgot about my favorite Congressman, that I had a chance to hear speak this Summer in DC. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania.
  15. Governer: Bill Richardson Senate: Dick Durbin, Jim Webb Representative: Debbie Wasserman Schultz
  16. So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing? You gotta love the double standard on this board huh F_M. I dont think there is anyone on this board, Dem or Repub, that didnt support the invasion of Afghanistan who had direct links to the attacks on our soil. Once again if you dont support taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan what do you support in the War on Terrorism. Dude, I don't support the war on terrorism, I am the war on terrorism. I support the full extermination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the fact of the matter is you don't send conventional forces into a nuclear superpower that doesn't want you there and if you do you damn well better be prepared to go to war with said country, whether they're an ally or not. If we go into Pakistan and they launch an attack against us, they would have had every right in the world to do so and it would be Obama's fault and he would be directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, going to war with a country like that and you'll have death tolls that would make the current number of ~3,000 deaths pale in comparison. Obama is just trying to seem like some tough cowboy to try and gain support from a group of people who normally would never even consider voting for such a man. It's a political stunt and nothing more, and it's an incredibly stupid one. Pakistan would not attack us if we launch air strikes into the mountain region or even if we sent some special forces in. They know better than that. So if the Pakistanis dont eliminate them what do you propose we do? Stand idly by while Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regroup to launch another terrorist attack on us. That area is becoming another Afghanistan, a safe haven for terrorists. This really isnt a new idea, the Bush administartion has considered launching air strikes in the area if the Pakistanis dont step their game up, and that is the same ultimatum Obama is saying nothing new, except that this time its a Dem expressing this idea. And I can't stand how every single foreign policy debate turns into a conversation about liberals and dems being weenies. We really can't have a nuanced conversation in the bullpen without it turning political. Yeah its a shame how we cant have real foreign policy debate on this board. Thats what wrong with politics these days, everything is right or left, dem or repub.
  17. So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing? You gotta love the double standard on this board huh F_M. I dont think there is anyone on this board, Dem or Repub, that didnt support the invasion of Afghanistan who had direct links to the attacks on our soil. Once again if you dont support taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan what do you support in the War on Terrorism. Dude, I don't support the war on terrorism, I am the war on terrorism. I support the full extermination of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the fact of the matter is you don't send conventional forces into a nuclear superpower that doesn't want you there and if you do you damn well better be prepared to go to war with said country, whether they're an ally or not. If we go into Pakistan and they launch an attack against us, they would have had every right in the world to do so and it would be Obama's fault and he would be directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, going to war with a country like that and you'll have death tolls that would make the current number of ~3,000 deaths pale in comparison. Obama is just trying to seem like some tough cowboy to try and gain support from a group of people who normally would never even consider voting for such a man. It's a political stunt and nothing more, and it's an incredibly stupid one. Pakistan would not attack us if we launch air strikes into the mountain region or even if we sent some special forces in. They know better than that. So if the Pakistanis dont eliminate them what do you propose we do? Stand idly by while Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regroup to launch another terrorist attack on us. That area is becoming another Afghanistan, a safe haven for terrorists. This really isnt a new idea, the Bush administartion has considered launching air strikes in the area if the Pakistanis dont step their game up, and that is the same ultimatum Obama is saying nothing new, except that this time its a Dem expressing this idea.
  18. So if AQ is building its powerbase, and Musharraf tells us we are absolutely not allowed to intervene, you would say we should do nothing? You gotta love the double standard on this board huh F_M. I dont think there is anyone on this board, Dem or Repub, that didnt support the invasion of Afghanistan who had direct links to the attacks on our soil. Once again if you dont support taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan what do you support in the War on Terrorism.
  19. In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan ? with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1 Imagine if Bush were to use that reasoning. HELL 0N EARF. Obama's words don't mean declaring all out war on Pakistan and invading the country. He means sending troops into the regions where the central government and Musharraf are losing control whole AQ and the Taliban are becoming stronger and stronger. Musharraf might not like it, but he might have to deal with it. He has to deal with the instability in his country sooner or later. Post 9-11 he would have been absolutely fine with us doing it because he feared us. Now he thinks he can play us along the same lines of playing the fundamentalists in his country. And I don't think anyone ever said Bush has to ask permission before using force in the exercise of protecting American national security. Maybe the nuances of the debate have been mischaracterized in terms of the black and white. But not being extremely aggressive overzealous warhawks is not the same thing as asking permission. There have been plenty of occasions where force has been used correctly and with democrat and liberal support. But where a link to protecting our national security is extremely weak, yes, people will be critical of what is being done. Who ended up being absolutely right about Iraq? The people who said we should not have invaded it because it was not vital to the post-9/11 world.I had to lol on both of the bolded parts (emphasis my own). If this shoe were on the other foot like I said, it'd be hell on Earth. This is why I can't stand politics and those that just toe the party line and close themselves off from everything else that doesn't come from their own party/candidate/president. That Obama is such a 'fear monger'. :lol Wow I guess you dont know the definition of a fear monger. It really is a basic concept Mr. Fox. Iraq= no links to Al-Qaeda, and no direct threat to the U.S. Pakistan border with Afghanistan= Supporting Al-Qaeda and Taliban,, direct threat to the U.S. Which one do I want to eliminate and use force?
  20. Barack Obama - nyynyyynynny - 14 Hillary Clinton - nyynyyynynny - 14 Dennis Kucinich - nyynnynyynyn - 12 John Edwards - nyynnyynynny - 12 Bill Richardson - nyynnyynnnny - 6 Ron Paul - nynnnnnynnyy - 4 Rudy Giuliani - ynnnyyyynyny - -2 John McCain - yynyyyynnyny - -8 Mike Huckabee - yynyynynnyny - -10 Mitt Romney - yynyynynnyny - -10 Looks like the candidate I'm supporting does match my views. I just wish Clinton wasnt so high on the list because she probably ranks 4 or 5th on my list in my mind.
  21. You can give $2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general. I just dont understand how Stiller has $6,900. Also I find it interesting that a few celebrities like Paul Newman and Ben Stiller donated to more than one campaign.
  22. While he has a problem with the mainstream Republican party he has another big problem, and I know I'm going to catch sh*t for this but his supporters are the most pompous supporters I've yet to meet. It turns most people off, like somehow they're all a member of this cool club and everyone else just doesn't get it. Much like the majority of the national libertarian party. Why should that even matter? You vote for the candidate, not his supporters. Yes because I've established myself over the years as a Libertarian Republican. I'm a Democrat who has a problem with Libertarian policies so trust me I don't think Paul is high on my list. The fact is though people in Iowa are not going to respond well to 20 year old trust fund hipsters who want to smoke pot without it interfering when they go for a stock broker job in 10 years and have their grandfather's assets in tact when they clock out and it's time for them to get it. That's my stereotypical but in my experience accurate description of a Ron Paul supporter. Their annoying and think they are better than everyone. Come to think of it, I should be a Paul supporter. All jokes aside, Paul is an Internet mirage. You go on the net and he's really something, you go on the ground where it matters and Ron Paul means as much as Tom Tancredo. I dont think he meant "you" literally. While I agree that Paul is a true Republican, even if by some miracle he would win the primary he would have no shot in the general.
  23. This guy lobied Congress to limit liability claims on asbestos related illnesses for a London based company. He really is a Washington outside and man of the people!
  24. One of the interns where I currently work at who is suffering from leukemia says when she was first diagnosed in the hospital one of the nurses told her father and mother that the hospital offers a free seminar on how to deal with insurance companies. Should the parents of a sick child really have to sit through a seminar to learn how to have the insurance company work for them? Its total bulls***. She says her and her parents are still constantly fighting with the insurance company to pay for drugs and treatment.
  25. I may sustain some attacks for this, but I can't stand Bill Richardson. The guy has accomplished a lot and is really capable. But for every question, he recites his resume like he is in a job interview. It's like the presidency is a career move for him. He can barely hide his insincerity. Now I shall wait for the impending Obama attack. I agree that gets really annoying but if anyone watched the debate on PBS last week, I never saw him do it once and he performed much better in that debate.
×
×
  • Create New...