Cheech Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Ineptitude=Barry SoetoroKeep fuckin' that chicken. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Ohio has little to do with who gets the nomination. You do need to be registered to the party to vote in the primary. By the time Ohio gets to vote most likely it will be a done deal. We are the last of three states to vote and it's a foregone conclusion by that point.Oh yeah, it won't be Ron Paul for the "R" nominee either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downwithdisease Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 politics suck... its all he said she said type arguments. no one ever agrees. with that being said my opinion is more important than everyone else's: Ron Paul is one of the only logical thinking politicians in America. He thinks about his constituents when he votes and votes the same way every time. He cares about the greater good of society without being socialist. To me that is a good politician, someone who wants the best for everyone but doesn't want hand outs. BTW that bluerepublican site is pretty cool. I browsed the site quickly because i am at work but it looked legit. cheech here are your options. you can only choose one:PaulRomney PerryGingrichObama Romney and Perry flip flop on every issue. Perry votes with the lobbyists. Gingrich has a long list of ethics violations. obama... i dont need to expand. so even if you think RP is radical maybe a radical change is what we need. (i dont think he is radical) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Government didn't create credit default swaps. Government didn't create CDO's. Government didn't lump subprime mortgages into complex derivatives that they sold to rubes (with AAA ratings from private ratings firms, government didn't do that either) then started betting against them. Government didn't... you see where I'm going with this.Government, however, did repeal Glass-Steagall, which was one of the major pieces of regulation to come from the Great Depression. It greatly reduced the separation between commercial and investment banks. There's also this: "In 2004, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis."You are absolutely correct that the government didn't create credit default swaps. They did however create an environment that forced the banks into creating them. When you force the institutions to risk their money at threat of losing their license to be a financial institution the banks will find a way to pass that risk along to others. Technically the government didn't create the vehicle that caused the crash they did build the road that it ran on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 I though Fox News was a respected journalistic outlet amongst the Republican base? I'm not Republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 I'm not Republican.So why are you pushing a Republican candidate for president? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 politics suck... its all he said she said type arguments. no one ever agrees. with that being said my opinion is more important than everyone else's: Ron Paul is one of the only logical thinking politicians in America. He thinks about his constituents when he votes and votes the same way every time. He cares about the greater good of society without being socialist. To me that is a good politician, someone who wants the best for everyone but doesn't want hand outs. BTW that bluerepublican site is pretty cool. I browsed the site quickly because i am at work but it looked legit. cheech here are your options. you can only choose one:PaulRomney PerryGingrichObama Romney and Perry flip flop on every issue. Perry votes with the lobbyists. Gingrich has a long list of ethics violations. obama... i dont need to expand. so even if you think RP is radical maybe a radical change is what we need. (i dont think he is radical)I like multiple choice tests, but your options need to be expanded a little.Romney - 2008 McCain redux. Flipped on all progressive issues when he left MA, now a hand-puppet of a man.Perry - Complete, unadulterated, fucking moron. Shrub v2.Gingrich - Utterly untrustworthy, prone to engage in worthless distractions to steer attention away from personal issues. 100% sociopath.Bachmann - In it for the book sales, will be out after NH. Also batshit crazy and exists in a echo chamber.Huntsman - If I had to pick a horse in the Conservative field, he would be it. Unfortunately, he still panders to the "cut corporate taxes!" GOP mantra, but he can at least articulate his positions without having his record undermine his statements. On foreign policy, he can't be beat.Santorum - Bitch, please. The thumpiest of the thumpers, I really believe he'd see America turn into a quasi-theocratic state.Paul - All the above, plus he signed onto Norquist's tax pledge, which basically tells me that he's not willing to look at any other tax options other than spending cuts. Nevermind that the tax rate to the upper brackets could stand to be raised by 2%, that would clearly result in Grover Norquist chopping your head off in the middle of the night. He also got his son to sign on too, how nice.Obama - Needs to find some bollocks when he's off the campaign trail. Not happy with him removing the public option from the healthcare bill. He hasn't been ideal, but he's been a damn sight better than Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 So why are you pushing a Republican candidate for president?http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/libertarian-party-tells-ron-paul-to-come-on-over/http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2011/11/09/paul-libertarians-cant-be-discounted/I thought it was kind of a known thing that I'm a Libertarian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Obama - Needs to find some bollocks when he's off the campaign trail. Not happy with him removing the public option from the healthcare bill. He hasn't been ideal, but he's been a damn sight better than Bush.I'm going to go ahead and have to disagree with you there amigo. He's no different than Bush. Same warmongering. Same lies. Same illegal detention. Same war on drugs. Same foreign policies. He's the same damn package wrapped up in a black bow with a liberal tag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 I'm going to go ahead and have to disagree with you there amigo. He's no different than Bush. Same warmongering. Same lies. Same illegal detention. Same policies. He's the same damn package wrapped up in a black bow with a liberal tag.Obama never lied to get us into a major military engagement, and also never used shady accounting to mask the true cost of said engagement.We're now pulled out of Iraq. Not "ended major combat operations" like Chimpy McFlightSuit announced 7 fucking years ago, OUT. (And before someone pipes up about Libya, that was a NATO incursion and is also done and over.)No arguements about illegal detention. However, Congress completely stonewalled on closing Gitmo, using what I'll term as the Magneto defense in that the detainees are really super-soldiers, and that no facility in the continental US can keep them properly contained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Obama never lied to get us into a major military engagement, and also never used shady accounting to mask the true cost of said engagement.We're now pulled out of Iraq. Not "ended major combat operations" like Chimpy McFlightSuit announced 7 fucking years ago, OUT. (And before someone pipes up about Libya, that was a NATO incursion and is also done and over.)No arguements about illegal detention. However, Congress completely stonewalled on closing Gitmo, using what I'll term as the Magneto defense in that the detainees are really super-soldiers, and that no facility in the continental US can keep them properly contained.We were kicked out of Iraq. Obama wanted to extend the agreement, to keep troops there. But he wanted the troops to have legal immunity. The Iraqi government said no, get out. That had NOTHING to do with Obama. Plus, how many of those troops left Iraq and went to Afghanistan?You don't think there's already an Iran attack plan on the table? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/libertarian-party-tells-ron-paul-to-come-on-over/http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2011/11/09/paul-libertarians-cant-be-discounted/I thought it was kind of a known thing that I'm a Libertarian.I'm not clear at what you are trying to get at. Is Ron Paul a Republican or a Libertarian? If he's a Republican then he's apparently not a very good one or his numbers would be better. If he's a Libertarian why is he running for the Republican nomination? Could he be just another politician who can't be trusted by flip-flopping around to suit his own needs and he's just muddying up the waters in the Republican debates. Will he run as a Libertarian after he doesn’t get the Republican nomination? After he has used the process to get exposure, seems a little underhanded and typical for a politician. By pushing a Republican candidate for president you appear to a Republican if not you should be touting your Libertarian candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted December 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 I'm not clear at what you are trying to get at. Is Ron Paul a Republican or a Libertarian?If he's a Republican then he's apparently not a very good one or his numbers would be better. If he's a Libertarian why is he running for the Republican nomination? Could he be just another politician who can't be trusted by flip-flopping around to suit his own needs and he's just muddying up the waters in the Republican debates. Will he run as a Libertarian after he doesn’t get the Republican nomination? After he has used the process to get exposure, seems a little underhanded and typical for a politician. By pushing a Republican candidate for president you appear to a Republican if not you should be touting your Libertarian candidate.Here's a quick lesson for you. Libertarians are what Republicans used to be. Fiscal conservatives who believe in small government. Ron Paul is an old school Republican. Hence, why Libertarians support him. It's all about civil liberties and freedom. Not what can we get the government to give us and do for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 We were kicked out of Iraq. Obama wanted to extend the agreement, to keep troops there. But he wanted the troops to have legal immunity. The Iraqi government said no, get out. That had NOTHING to do with Obama. Plus, how many of those troops left Iraq and went to Afghanistan?You don't think there's already an Iran attack plan on the table?If they were in Afghanistan to begin with, we might be out of there by now.DOD has attack plans for everyone. That's what makes a good defense department, putting a bunch of people in a room and coming up with scenarios for attack and defense of everyone. I'm willing to bet there's an attack plan for Canada (that may or may not be mirrored off of Canadian Bacon, but I digress)The differentiating factor here is that Obama's not looking for some obscure reason he can manufacture into a rationale for a full-scale military invasion. If Israel wants to whip out their cock (and from what I know about Jews, I'd advise against this) and smack Iran around, that should be none of our business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Here's a quick lesson for you. Libertarians are what Republicans used to be. Fiscal conservatives who believe in small government. Ron Paul is an old school Republican. Hence, why Libertarians support him. It's all about civil liberties and freedom. Not what can we get the government to give us and do for us.So he is a as Libertarian disguised as a shitty Republican who isn't genuine enough to run as a Libertarian? Sounds like political expedience and not to much different from any other politician who will lie to get ahead. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downwithdisease Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 or sounds like a guy who knows running as a libertarian in a 2 party system gets you .01% of votes and no chance at winning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.