View Full Version : Condoleezza Rice Emerges As Most Likely Vice President Designate
Personally I have no issue with her and all things considered believe she could be a catalyst for a successful election outcome. I would also be comfortable with her leading the country if needed, as she has demonstrated both capability and also overall sensibility.
I have no links to offer, just heard about an hr ago via two credible sources. We'll see how this plays out, but I think it would be a positive development all current circumstances carefully considered.
Her stance on guns, as of 2005, was good. Be interesting to see where she lies these days.
I'd be more likely to vote for her as POTUS than Mittens. I'd be concerned that Obama's crew will scream "Four more years of Bush cronyism!". They're obviously not done pulverizing that dead horse. :rolleyes:
GeorgiaBoy
07-12-12, 22:48
A lot of people would argue a race card on her selection...
A lot of people would argue a race card on her selection...
If I recall correctly, she speaks 7 or 8 languages fluently and is a member of Mensa.
Mauser KAR98K
07-12-12, 23:05
If this goes through, this is twice a Republican candidate has placed a woman on the steps of becoming a VP.
Candi can bring a HUGE amount of foreign experience to the office that we sourly need. Especially after this F*** up we have now.
Mitt for the economy.
Rice for foreign policy.
Big bases covered. Hope it works and praying we can get them in the hot seat. Time for this amateur fab to go away.
Interesting. Last week I read an article in which she was quoted as flatly saying she was uninterested.
But now:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577523631390995126.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
----
Heavy Metal
07-12-12, 23:50
If I recall correctly, she speaks 7 or 8 languages fluently and is a member of Mensa.
Lets hear them try and call her stupid like they did Palin.
My $.02. Take it for what it's worth:
I don't care whose name they throw on the Romney banners and pins. I'm sitting this one out. I don't trust, believe in, agree with, or respect either of them. Therefore I cannot in good conscience cast a ballot of support.
Our choice this Nov is between two liars: one a Marxist and the other a Democrat. Let this be a lesson to the GOP and to the "conservative" primary voters:
Judging them by their works is far more important than judging them by their words, so get off the couch, turn off the TV, and do your ****ing homework. And while you're at it, read the Constitution and American history. It's no longer somebody else's problem, it's yours. If you believe we must have a well-informed voting populace, well, you must be the change you wish to see in the world, as Gandhi said.
Here comes the "by not voting, you ARE voting" BS.
Mauser KAR98K
07-13-12, 00:36
My $.02. Take it for what it's worth:
I don't care whose name they throw on the Romney banners and pins. I'm sitting this one out. I don't trust, believe in, agree with, or respect either of them. Therefore I cannot in good conscience cast a ballot of support.
Our choice this Nov is between two liars: one a Marxist and the other a Democrat. Let this be a lesson to the GOP and to the "conservative" primary voters:
Judging them by their works is far more important than judging them by their words, so get off the couch, turn off the TV, and do your ****ing homework. And while you're at it, read the Constitution and American history. It's no longer somebody else's problem, it's yours. If you believe we must have a well-informed voting populace, well, you must be the change you wish to see in the world, as Gandhi said.
Here comes the "by not voting, you ARE voting" BS.
Umm, yeah, that whole idea worked for the country well last time.
At this point, I'd pick the douche over the shit sandwich we have been eating recently.
My $.02. Take it for what it's worth:
I don't care whose name they throw on the Romney banners and pins. I'm sitting this one out. I don't trust, believe in, agree with, or respect either of them. Therefore I cannot in good conscience cast a ballot of support.
You're not going to vote? One of our most cherished and important duties as a citizen of this country is to vote. That right has been paid for with the blood of patriots and warriors. In matters not to me who you vote for. The higher the percentage of voter turnout the more that worries politicians. They can con some of the people some of the time but they can't con all the people all of the time. It scares them when they know that we are paying attention. Please reconsider. Critical times are upon us.
Here comes the "by not voting, you ARE voting" BS.
It is not BS.
You have a vote. There is no way around that. You cannot get rid of your vote. It is part of being a citizen that you have one vote.
However you vote, Obama, Romney, or by sitting on your bum at home, twiddling your thumbs and adoring yourself for being so righteous and worthy for not voting, your vote is cast and influences the election. It is a mathematical fact.
Get over it, and get over yourself.
-
GeorgiaBoy
07-13-12, 01:24
If I recall correctly, she speaks 7 or 8 languages fluently and is a member of Mensa.
While she certainly has the credentials, I am saying that many people would argue that her race, AND gender, would be an important reason why she would be picked as a running mate. To get the black and female vote.
Who can deny that democrats and republicans have been bringing this nation to ruin?
Maybe I'll vote for Gary Johnson. I don't know much about him yet. Maybe I'll write in someone else. But I'm done giving my consent to the establishment schmuck that the talking heads tell me is the lesser of two evils, when I can see with my own eyes what his record is, and I can't stomach being lied to and made into a fool.
If refusing to compromise ones principles means one has his head up his ass, so be it.
You can't berate a man for refusing to choose, if the choice is between Benedict Arnold and Lord Cornwallis, can you?
My $.02. Take it for what it's worth:
I don't care whose name they throw on the Romney banners and pins. I'm sitting this one out. I don't trust, believe in, agree with, or respect either of them. Therefore I cannot in good conscience cast a ballot of support...Here comes the "by not voting, you ARE voting" BS.
Nah, I have a different take on your mentality.
You see, I assume that you plan to run for office since there are no candidates that meet your standards of deserving a ballot. If not, then welcome to Cowardsville; Population - YOU.
People who don't vote, sit around complaining about the field of candidates, and never volunteer / run for office are worse for the country than the parasites collecting welfare. That's right, it is the moral responsibility of every American to participate in the political system - the most basic form of which is to vote. A shit load of people died to give you that ability, and you are disrespecting that sacrifice by simply sitting on your hands. If you feel that all of the available candidates are such a poor reflection of your morals that you can't bring yourself to cast a ballot, then get off your ass and run for office. Only the lowest moral coward would allow their country to slip into an abyss without voting to change the trajectory, or taking a more active role to save their community by putting their name on a ballot. So, if your planning on missing the voting booth on Super Tuesday 2012 (or any other election), it better be because you are doing some last minute campaigning for your own candidacy for mayor, town counsel, city manager, dog catcher, etc.
Moose-Knuckle
07-13-12, 02:46
Lets hear them try and call her stupid like they did Palin.
I don't think anyone will call her stupid, but there are those that will call her a "sell out" and or an "Uncle Tom".
If not Condoleeza Rice, I would really like to see the Congressman from Florida, Allen West, have a go at it. He is probably committed to running for his seat again in the House but hopefully he will move on to the Senate and from there the POTUS. That would take 8 years and we're running out of time. The problem is that it's rare for either party to have three consecutive terms in the White House. I believe the last one was Reagan/Bush, 1980-92. If Romney succeeds and gets us on the right track, he would probably get his second term. Whether the country will back another Republican after him is highly questionable.
It would be nice to be able to disagree with you guys without being labeled a self righteous coward.
Whatever. I don't say or do things based on what's popular or PC. I follow my heart, and couldn't care less who thinks less of me because of it.
I plan on voting in every other race besides Presidential, and even then, I still may. Just not for the douche or the turd sandwich. You guys have fun getting conned by the two-party dictatorship that has done us wonders of ruin; the ping-pong game from hell. I'm not playing anymore.
Cowardice would be supporting a broken system despite your better judgement. Cowardice would be casting away your principles and supporting more tyranny and ruin because everyone else is. Cowardice is voting for evil period, no matter whether it's the lesser or the greater. Cowardice is staying silent when you know you're bound to catch some flak for speaking your opinion, due to its' unpopularity.
What're you fellas gonna say next? Perhaps you'll revert to the tried and true "You're either with us or the terrorists.". Or how about "Well, if you don't like America, you can get out."
Cast your ballots for the same ****ing despots that got us here, and tell me I'M UNPATRIOTIC???
AM I THE ONLY SANE PERSON LEFT ON PLANET EARTH???
Grow a pair, and reject those that work to ruin you and your rights and sell your children down the river. I will not comply.
It would be nice to be able to disagree with you guys without being labeled a self righteous coward.
Whatever. I don't say or do things based on what's popular or PC. I follow my heart, and couldn't care less who thinks less of me because of it.
I plan on voting in every other race besides Presidential, and even then, I still may. Just not for the douche or the turd sandwich. You guys have fun getting conned by the two-party dictatorship that has done us wonders of ruin; the ping-pong game from hell. I'm not playing anymore.
Cowardice would be supporting a broken system despite your better judgement. Cowardice would be casting away your principles and supporting more tyranny and ruin because everyone else is. Cowardice is voting for evil period, no matter whether it's the lesser or the greater. Cowardice is staying silent when you know you're bound to catch some flak for speaking your opinion, due to its' unpopularity.
What're you fellas gonna say next? Perhaps you'll revert to the tried and true "You're either with us or the terrorists.". Or how about "Well, if you don't like America, you can get out."
Cast your ballots for the same ****ing despots that got us here, and tell me I'M UNPATRIOTIC???
AM I THE ONLY SANE PERSON LEFT ON PLANET EARTH???
Grow a pair, and reject those that work to ruin you and your rights and sell your children down the river. I will not comply.
What will your post be when Obama appoints another liberal scotus judge in his 2nd term giving the liberals a majority and they completely strip our 2A rights by legislating from the bench?
Thats crap. What makes you think Romney won't do the same thing. Bush appointed Roberts and he just handed Congress a permission slip to tax without limits. Or George HW Bush who appointed David Souter thinking he was a conservative. Or Eisenhower who appointed "conservative" Earl Warren who went on to preside over some of the most leftist decisions in SCOTUS history. Sure sounds like a small government of enumerated powers to me! :suicide:
montanadave
07-13-12, 07:08
My take on Rice? Impressive credentials, intelligent, sound background ... and no brass.
During the Bush administration, she routinely let her voice be drowned out by Cheney and Rumsfeld, to the detriment of both Bush and the country. Rice looks good on paper, presents herself well in public, but can't play hardball with the big boys with the big egos.
So I'm guessing she's got a good shot at the VP slot as she has a lot to offer the Romney ticket from the PR standpoint but presents no threat to the heavy hitters.
RogerinTPA
07-13-12, 07:46
Anyone who "sits it out', during an election, especially the most important election in our life time because you don't like the game, and wanna take your ball and go home, is neglecting their civic duty. Voter apathy my ass. People who talk shit and wont take a stand by casting a vote is a loud mouth coward... or a sheep. I agree with others who say that voters who took the same stance last time around, cost the Republicans the election. It's time to "nut up or shut up". It's time to rally behind the candidate who has the best chance of defeating this traitor. If an individual doesn't vote, IMHO, you have no right to bitch and complain, because when the time comes, you could have made the difference.
Littlelebowski
07-13-12, 07:48
A lot of people would argue a race card on her selection...
Not me. She's smart and extremely capable. She would destroy Biden in debates.
to those sitting home on election day..... there are other positions besides POTUS.
just saying.
The mental illness is strong in here
platoonDaddy
07-13-12, 08:28
I am not impressed with her!
Donald Henry Rumsfeld latest book "Known and Unknown" took her to the tool shed. Said she was ineffectual and inexperienced. Rumsfeld's contempt for her ability to function effectively as National Security Council chief is thoroughgoing, and he implicitly attributes some of Bush's poor decisions to the fact that Rice was usually the last person to whom the president spoke.
In my opinion she is a Colin Powell clone.
In the final analysis, I will vote for any buddy but Obama.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-13-12, 09:02
Not me. She's smart and extremely capable. She would destroy Biden in debates.
That was my first thought too. If Biden struggled against Palin, imagine what Condi would do to him.
She does come off a bit cold and the lack of spouse would be a first in a long time?
lifebreath
07-13-12, 09:27
I like Condi as a running mate, for the reasons stated.
SMETNA - You should meditate on Voltaire until you understand the quote: "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." ("The best is the enemy of the good.")
AM I THE ONLY SANE PERSON LEFT ON PLANET EARTH???
Don't worry, you're not sounding all that sane to me. Just vote for Romney to help avert disaster and then use all your emotion and frustration to start a local movement. Make yourself known to your Congressmen, write to them often.
DeltaSierra
07-13-12, 09:46
Both parties have proven, time and time again, that they are not to be trusted.
The fact is that Mitt Romney is NOT worth voting for. He sold Massachusetts down the river, and if you think he isn't going to do the exact same thing on the federal level, you must be smoking some good stuff...
VooDoo6Actual
07-13-12, 09:50
At this point, I'd pick the douche over the shit sandwich we have been eating recently.
This.
The psychology for me is simple: It's the lesser of 2 evils for me. Not casting your vote IS giving your vote to the known of evil.
Regardless of the rectitude of your beliefs, you will be in a fight regardless. It's obvious why Condi was chosen. It was smart, sound political gamesmanship which is long over due. She will not have to be "READ-IN" as much as other candidates to the real agenda. She knows the topography & players VERY well.
WE will not be a happy nation regardless.
There-ya go! Ron
Both parties have proven, time and time again, that they are not to be trusted.
The fact is that Mitt Romney is NOT worth voting for. He sold Massachusetts down the river, and if you think he isn't going to do the exact same thing on the federal level, you must be smoking some good stuff...
The mental illness is strong in here
No, it's just you.
I used to believe as you do, that I was just going to sit around and fold my arms because no major political party presented me with the Constitutionalist option I really wanted and the Libertarian Party A, didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning, and B. most of LP's candidates have sucked in other ways. After I realized I was never going to get precisely what I wanted, I grew up and voted for the guy I found less objectionable.
Seriously man, if you really think it's that bad, why aren't you out starting the Revolution????
Unlike the others here I'm not going to chastise you for not voting and give you the civic duty lesson, mainly because I don't believe it is a duty. Voting is a privilege, one that should be denied to as many people as possible.
And no, I don't like Romney, but I dislike Obama more and that's basically what it boils down to.
There-ya go! Ron
Before you jump on his bandwagon, you should read some of his other posts about politics.......
Edited. Most people probably already know what I think of Donald Rumsfeld, no point stinking up this thread.
This statement is spot on.. I don't know anything else about the poster or anybody else here really.. Ron
"Both parties have proven, time and time again, that they are not to be trusted."
Here comes the "by not voting, you ARE voting" BS.
The last good President was Truman.
Since they are all turds, you pick the lesser of turds. That is how our system works. It's not perfect, just better than all the rest!!:)
There are some pretty high attitudes on here. All noble and brain washed by US schooling. You can be anything they want you to be. Lol. With that said, let me point out the obvious.
Throughout modern civilized history, the ruling of people is and has always been about the MONEY. Defense is good business because without the drones, there is no more money. When you think ruling powers are not making decisions based on $ then they have suckered you into dieing for them based on hypothetical high ideas such as honor, country, etc. I wish it was not truth but, it is.
CarlosDJackal
07-13-12, 10:20
Not me. She's smart and extremely capable. She would destroy Biden in debates.
No doubt. Of course, that doesn't say much. A brownie would win a debate against Biden. :D
Interesting development but I don't think it helps Mitt's tread-water campaign.
RogerinTPA
07-13-12, 10:31
By and large, I agree with your statement, BUT...at this time and space, it's all BS and you have lost sight of the overall objective. Since you don't like the guy (who won the primary), you're choosing to sit on your ass too huh? Shows that you and those like you lack the conviction of your words and cannot be trusted or counted on to do what is required/necessary. If the last 4 year have not awakened the American public (You) to the most dangerous person who ever sat in that office, and still refuse to take a stand, you've been in a coma.
Both parties have proven, time and time again, that they are not to be trusted.
The fact is that Mitt Romney is NOT worth voting for. He sold Massachusetts down the river, and if you think he isn't going to do the exact same thing on the federal level, you must be smoking some good stuff...
It's not that I want a perfect candidate. Obviously, no one is ever going to line up 100% with what I want. The issue this time is, that Romney and Obama don't line up with what I want at all. There is nothing redeemable about either of these clowns
Since they are all turds, you pick the lesser of turds. That is how our system works.
How's that been working for you?
What will your post be when Obama appoints another liberal scotus judge in his 2nd term giving the liberals a majority and they completely strip our 2A rights by legislating from the bench?
I know what I'll be saying. Too bad the GOP acted like a bunch of fools and nominated yet ANOTHER lame duck candidate. I mean let's get real serious for a moment. First McCain and now Romney. Is this really the best the GOP has to offer. If so, perhaps it's time for them to go the way of the Whigs. They were useful for a time, but they've fallen out of step with their intended purpose. :(
lifebreath
07-13-12, 11:38
Thread hijack:
Romney vs. the "O"ther guy. Here are Romney's positions, we all know Obama's. Which would you prefer?
Sure, you may say it's only rhetoric, which may be true to some degree, but words and commitments mean something, and when taken in toto, they reveal an overarching philosophy. Will compromise occur? Of course, to think otherwise is naive. However, I'll take Romney's philosophy over Obama's in a heartbeat.
How many people here have actually read through Romney's positions? Or are we all sheeple who only get our information from media? Read his complete plan here: Romney Plan (http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf)
From Romney's website, some excerpts ...
Gun rights:
Like the majority of Americans, Mitt does not believe that the United States needs additional laws that restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He believes in the safe and responsible ownership and use of firearms and the right to lawfully manufacture and sell firearms and ammunition. He also recognizes the extraordinary number of jobs and other economic benefits that are produced by hunting, recreational shooting, and the firearms and ammunition industry, not the least of which is to fund wildlife and habitat conservation.
Mitt will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes. But he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals. Mitt will also provide law enforcement with the proper and effective resources they need to deter, apprehend, and punish criminals.
Supreme Court:
Mitt believes in the rule of law, and he understands that the next president will make nominations that will shape the Supreme Court and the whole of the judiciary for decades to come. He will therefore appoint wise, experienced, and restrained judges who will take seriously their oath to discharge their duties impartially in accordance with the Constitution and laws — not their own personal policy preferences.
Energy:
As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers. This will require putting conservative principles into action.
The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power.
National Defense:
As Commander-in-Chief, Mitt Romney will keep faith with the men and women who defend us just as he will ensure that our military capabilities are matched to the interests we need to protect. He will put our Navy on the path to increase its shipbuilding rate from nine per year to approximately fifteen per year. He will also modernize and replace the aging inventories of the Air Force, Army, and Marines, and selectively strengthen our force structure. And he will fully commit to a robust, multi-layered national ballistic-missile defense system to deter and defend against nuclear attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Taxes:
America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.
Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
The mental illness is strong in here
Look in the mirror.
-
lifebreath
07-13-12, 12:08
WHO GIVES A SHIT WHAT THEY SAY!! THEY LIE!!
LOOK AT THEIR VOTING RECORDS!!
Black-and-white thinking is not healthy. It is also known as "splitting."
Grow a pair, and reject those that work to ruin you and your rights and sell your children down the river. I will not comply.
Your plan does exactly this. It sells your children down the river.
Mental illness is pretending that you live in a different world than the actual world you live in and disengaging yourself from the actual world.
--
Both parties have proven, time and time again, that they are not to be trusted.
The fact is that Mitt Romney is NOT worth voting for. He sold Massachusetts down the river, and if you think he isn't going to do the exact same thing on the federal level, you must be smoking some good stuff...
Romney did not sell Massachusetts down the river. I think you should have some awareness of what Massachusetts was like (it is NOT like NH) and what sort of system he was working in. Arguably, they would have been in much worse a situation with a Democrat as Governor.
I am not saying I support Romney's decisions in Massachusetts. I am saying you have to consider the whole environment: heavily liberal democratic society. Heavily and majority Democrat legislature. He was navigating those waters to the best of what he thought his ability was.
That does not automatically determine his decisions as President in a completely different environment. A much more conservative House and hopefully GOP majority Senate as well as a whole nation of center-right leaning [average for whole nation] providing input and a checks and balances to the system will greatly "inform" his decisions. Plus, he has put out a WHOLE LOT of words on his positions. It would be really really HARD for him to completely go against everything he said in the campaign. Even Obama has been much more moderate in some things than he really wants to be due to political realities [eg Guantanamo -- which is still open] and things he said to come across as a moderate in 2008.
--
Thread hijack:
Romney vs. the "O"ther guy. Here are Romney's positions, we all know Obama's. Which would you prefer?
Sure, you may say it's only rhetoric, which may be true to some degree, but words and commitments mean something, and when taken in toto, they reveal an overarching philosophy. Will compromise occur? Of course, to think otherwise is naive. However, I'll take Romney's philosophy over Obama's in a heartbeat.
How many people here have actually read through Romney's positions? Or are we all sheeple who only get our information from media? Read his complete plan here: Romney Plan (http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf)
From Romney's website, some excerpts ...
Gun rights:
Like the majority of Americans, Mitt does not believe that the United States needs additional laws that restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He believes in the safe and responsible ownership and use of firearms and the right to lawfully manufacture and sell firearms and ammunition. He also recognizes the extraordinary number of jobs and other economic benefits that are produced by hunting, recreational shooting, and the firearms and ammunition industry, not the least of which is to fund wildlife and habitat conservation.
Mitt will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes. But he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals. Mitt will also provide law enforcement with the proper and effective resources they need to deter, apprehend, and punish criminals.
Supreme Court:
Mitt believes in the rule of law, and he understands that the next president will make nominations that will shape the Supreme Court and the whole of the judiciary for decades to come. He will therefore appoint wise, experienced, and restrained judges who will take seriously their oath to discharge their duties impartially in accordance with the Constitution and laws — not their own personal policy preferences.
Energy:
As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers. This will require putting conservative principles into action.
The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power.
National Defense:
As Commander-in-Chief, Mitt Romney will keep faith with the men and women who defend us just as he will ensure that our military capabilities are matched to the interests we need to protect. He will put our Navy on the path to increase its shipbuilding rate from nine per year to approximately fifteen per year. He will also modernize and replace the aging inventories of the Air Force, Army, and Marines, and selectively strengthen our force structure. And he will fully commit to a robust, multi-layered national ballistic-missile defense system to deter and defend against nuclear attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Taxes:
America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.
Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
Yes, because a candidate's website is a great source of unbiased data. :rolleyes:
Your plan does exactly this. It sells your children down the river.
Mental illness is pretending that you live in a different world than the actual world you live in and disengaging yourself from the actual world.
--
This is what some would call "a teachable moment". Choices have consequences. When you choose to ignore the core principles of your own political party in order to nominate a politically expedient candidate, you risk alienating your own base.
Do you get mad at the diner when they refuse to eat an unappetizing meal? Saying the meal in the restaurant across the street is much worse will not improve the taste of the one you put on the table. :(
Originally Posted by SMETNA View Post
WHO GIVES A SHIT WHAT THEY SAY!! THEY LIE!!
LOOK AT THEIR VOTING RECORDS!!
Me thinks SMETNA did not get the change he had hoped for last election cycle. Lol
Thank YOU America for not voting and standing up for your immature idealism. Grow up and think like an adult.
Yes, because a candidate's website is a great source of unbiased data. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: Where do you expect to get the promises and pronunciations of the the candidate? What more unbiased site is there to get his positions and promises from?
This is what some would call "a teachable moment". Choices have consequences. When you choose to ignore the core principles of your own political party in order to nominate a politically expedient candidate, you risk alienating your own base.
Yes, it is a teachable moment.
I used to believe very strongly in what you are claiming here. After many election cycles, many years, I have gotten wiser.
What you claim is bunk and never happens in real life. The party does not learn anything when they lose their base some. (after all, where can the base go?) They do the calculus and make their decisions each election based on that calculus, which most often is a path of political expediency because it has the best chance of success of getting in office, which is their only concern. Short term actions. Short term reward.
Which means that we have to live in the world that exists, with the parties that exist, and the candidates that exist. We have our chance in the primaries to push whatever positions we want. If we win then we have our candidate. If we lose, we have to get the least offensive candidate in office so that we have time to build up our position and base for the next go around.
Do you get mad at the diner when they refuse to eat an unappetizing meal? Saying the meal in the restaurant across the street is much worse will not improve the taste of the one you put on the table. :(
Totally irrelevant to voting. The dynamics are not the same. Eating a meal at a restaurant or not does not have consequences outside of that restaurant. In an election, you ALWAYS have a vote and it ALWAYS gets used, whether you flip the switch in the booth or not.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide a little teaching on how things actually work, not how we wish they did! :D
--
montanadave
07-13-12, 12:36
Vote or don't vote. Sin of commission or sin of omission.
Do whatever let's you sleep with a clear conscience.
Folks have the right to vote. It's not a duty, contrary to what some may profess.
While she certainly has the credentials, I am saying that many people would argue that her race, AND gender, would be an important reason why she would be picked as a running mate. To get the black and female vote.
Yep, and watch the left try to destroy her and NOBODY call them out on their double standards, when they otherwise jump at every possible chance to label everyone who opposes THEIR black and/or female atrocities as racist and misogynist.
Folks have the right to vote. It's not a duty, contrary to what some may profess.
The thing that you are forgetting is that YOUR VOTE IS USED, whether YOU are the one to flip the switch or no. And I am not talking vote fraud...
-
Romney did not sell Massachusetts down the river. I think you should have some awareness of what Massachusetts was like (it is NOT like NH) and what sort of system he was working in. Arguably, they would have been in much worse a situation with a Democrat as Governor.
I am not saying I support Romney's decisions in Massachusetts. I am saying you have to consider the whole environment: heavily liberal democratic society. Heavily and majority Democrat legislature. He was navigating those waters to the best of what he thought his ability was.
That does not automatically determine his decisions as President in a completely different environment. A much more conservative House and hopefully GOP majority Senate as well as a whole nation of center-right leaning [average for whole nation] providing input and a checks and balances to the system will greatly "inform" his decisions. Plus, he has put out a WHOLE LOT of words on his positions. It would be really really HARD for him to completely go against everything he said in the campaign. Even Obama has been much more moderate in some things than he really wants to be due to political realities [eg Guantanamo -- which is still open] and things he said to come across as a moderate in 2008.
--
This is one of the better articulations of Romney's performance in Mass - nice job. I also see Romney as a type political chameleon who adapts to the policy background in which he finds himself. The down side of this characteristic is that it makes him appear unprincipled and there may be some truth to that criticism. On the other hand, there could be some real progress made if Romney could integrate himself with a conservative Congress. The flip side to that coin is that it could be a real disaster if Romney finds himself working with Democrat majorities in Congress since I don't see him drawing lines in the sand like Reagan.
When it comes to Rice - she would be a bad choice for the ticket. First, she represents the Bush Administration and her choice would add to the assertion that Romney would be a return to Bush policies. Second, she was not a particularly strong Sec. State or National Security advisor according to the leaders in her own administration. Cheney and Rumsfelt basically laid a minefield across her future political prospects in their books. Finally, she is luke-warm in her conservative credentials on the social polices. Romney would be better served by a VP that excites the base a little more than Rice given his past transgressions in the areas of gun control, abortion, etc.
Having said that, her presence on the ticket would not really bother me or change my vote. I just don't think that she really brings much to the table other than an ass whoop'n for Biden on a single VP debate; this can be accomplished by just about any person with an IQ above room temperature.
The Dems definitely will do everything they can to paint her in a horrible light. I can only hope the Repubs will cry fowl and point out the hypocrisy of the Dems. We'll see. I think she would be a great choice for the VP
lifebreath
07-13-12, 12:52
Folks have the right to vote. It's not a duty, contrary to what some may profess.
Of course it's not mandatory.
Rights are designed to protect and support our responsibilities. We have a responsibility to be involved civically. The right to vote provides a means to fulfill the responsibility. I will choose to be responsible and vote.
Do you get mad at the diner when they refuse to eat an unappetizing meal? Saying the meal in the restaurant across the street is much worse will not improve the taste of the one you put on the table. :(
This is a more profound analogy than some may think, and it really illustrates the divide between us. I DO get pissed when people refuse food prepared for them. Food is a luxury that many can't afford and I abhor waste. The same can be said about a vote.
This is a more profound analogy than some may think, and it really illustrates the divide between us. I DO get pissed when people refuse food prepared for them. Food is a luxury that many can't afford and I abhor waste. The same can be said about a vote.
So the fact that you have a diner/voter at the table/voting booth is an excuse to offer a bad meal/candidate, because you'll have righteous indignation if they refuse to eat it?
There are so many people that refuse to vote under any circumstance, why would you single out those that always do, but don't want to vote for these offensive shitbags anymore?
:rolleyes: <snip>
Thanks for the opportunity to provide a little teaching on how things actually work, not how we wish they did! :D
--
I disagree with everything you said and I don't believe you've gotten any wiser at all.
Ain't this country great! :D
I disagree with everything you said and I don't believe you've gotten any wiser at all.
You can disagree all you want. Doesn't change the truth. You can blabber all you want about things but truth remains the truth.
With voting it is even mathematical so easily proven through mathematics.
The truth is: your vote gets "used", whether you are the one who pulls the lever/checks the checkbox/touches the candidate on the touchscreen or not.
---
but don't want to vote for these offensive shitbags anymore?
You don't have that choice. You only think you do.
By not going to the voting booth, you've turned the vote over to be used in ways you may not agree with. You've lost control of it.
--
You can disagree all you want. Doesn't change the truth. You can blabber all you want about things but truth remains the truth.
With voting it is even mathematical so easily proven through mathematics.
The truth is: your vote gets "used", whether you are the one who pulls the lever/checks the checkbox/touches the candidate on the touchscreen or not.
---
Your "truth" is very truthy!
You simply don't understand the dynamics of voting. All the electoral votes for my state will go to Romney. They will NEVER go to Obama. I can go to the polling place and vote for Obama and it will make absolutely no difference in the outcome of the election. NONE. My vote is already meaningless. It's further marginalized by the fact that my ass backwards state requires 50,000 petition signatures to get a candidate on the POTUS ballot. Despite gathering 60,000 signatures, the state election board would only certify 44,000. We are barred by state law from write-ins. So I can't even file a protest vote for Gary Johnson. This is the way our 2 party cronies want it, so that's the way it is.
Now I'm going to ask you a question. How many letters have you sent to the party in opposition of their choices and candidates? I've sent three this year alone. I NEVER get a response, because what I have to say runs counter to what they want to do.
So feel free to take your "truth" and smoke it. It's about as useful as a boat anchor on a bicycle. :rolleyes:
You don't have that choice. You only think you do.
By not going to the voting booth, you've turned the vote over to be used in ways you may not agree with. You've lost control of it.
--
I'll be going to the voting booth. I just won't be wasting my time looking for which line to draw on the POTUS section of the ballot.
Sorry, my truth is based on reality (with some mathematics to boot). I look at the situation as it actually exists, not as I wish it to be.
The reality is, your guy, Gary Johnson failed to meet the requirements to get on the ballot. Whether the requirements were reasonable or not is another question. So deal with it.
Your "truth" is based on emotion. You look at things how you wish they were, not on how they actually are.
I was like that 20 years ago during Clinton's time. (My first vote came in 1984, for Reagan). Having been a card carrying LP member, and getting very worked up by the whole thing, I was fully in your same camp. However, watching the last 20 or so years has helped me realize that I have to work within the constraints of reality, not fantasy.
Your "truth" is very truthy!
You simply don't understand the dynamics of voting. All the electoral votes for my state will go to Romney. They will NEVER go to Obama. I can go to the polling place and vote for Obama and it will make absolutely no difference in the outcome of the election. NONE. My vote is already meaningless. It's further marginalized by the fact that my ass backwards state requires 50,000 petition signatures to get a candidate on the POTUS ballot. Despite gathering 60,000 signatures, the state election board would only certify 44,000. We are barred by state law from write-ins. So I can't even file a protest vote for Gary Johnson. This is the way our 2 party cronies want it, so that's the way it is.
Now I'm going to ask you a question. How many letters have you sent to the party in opposition of their choices and candidates? I've sent three this year alone. I NEVER get a response, because what I have to say runs counter to what they want to do.
So feel free to take your "truth" and smoke it. It's about as useful as a boat anchor on a bicycle. :rolleyes:
I'll be going to the voting booth. I just won't be wasting my time looking for which line to draw on the POTUS section of the ballot.
Bam! :agree:
This is a more profound analogy than some may think, and it really illustrates the divide between us. I DO get pissed when people refuse food prepared for them. Food is a luxury that many can't afford and I abhor waste. The same can be said about a vote.
Are we just bringing up the food analogy because her name is Rice? I do hope that if she is picked the duo is to become officially known as Rice a Romney--it's just TOO good to pass up.
To continue things further, the problem we have is that the food gets worse from both restaurants because neither has incentive to improve, only having to say that the other one is worse somehow.
Vote or don't vote. Sin of commission or sin of omission.
Do whatever let's you sleep with a clear conscience.
Folks have the right to vote. It's not a duty, contrary to what some may profess.
It's not actually a right either, or it would be conveyed to resident aliens. It's a privilege, one that is far too broadly applied.
Sorry, my truth is based on reality (with some mathematics to boot). I look at the situation as it actually exists, not as I wish it to be.
The reality is, your guy, Gary Johnson failed to meet the requirements to get on the ballot. Whether the requirements were reasonable or not is another question. So deal with it.
Your "truth" is based on emotion. You look at things how you wish they were, not on how they actually are.
I was like that 20 years ago during Clinton's time. (My first vote came in 1984, for Reagan). Having been a card carrying LP member, and getting very worked up by the whole thing, I was fully in your same camp. However, watching the last 20 or so years has helped me realize that I have to work within the constraints of reality, not fantasy.
Your truth is based on your own selfish desires as much or more than "reality" as you like to call it. The real truth is that we get the POTUS we deserve, whether we like it or not. Neither one of the two will do anything to improve our country. Truth is, they just aren't good enough to do it.
Your truth is based on your own selfish desires as much or more than "reality" as you like to call it. The real truth is that we get the POTUS we deserve, whether we like it or not. Neither one of the two will do anything to improve our country. Truth is, they just aren't good enough to do it.
???????????????? Come again?
My truth is not "based on [my] own selfish desires as much or more than "reality"". My truth is taken directly from reality. I may not like what it says, but I have learned to live within the constraints of reality and not emotional outbursts.
This is pure emotion on your part: "Neither one of the two will do anything to improve our country."
The reality is, we don't know what either of them will do. You have no basis in fact to make your claim. However, it would be a long shot to say that if Romney can enact even 10% of what he says on his website with regards to taxes, dividends, capital gains, AMT, etc. the country will be better off than it is now. And when you compare it to what Obama is likely to do, the difference is even more profound.
Neither of them are likely to push down the real reforms that are needed for long term health. But Ron Paul, if elected, would not get them passed either since he would be a minority with a Congress against him. So, for now I will take incremental short term gains. And we can work to create an environment in which real long term reforms have a hope of being passed and succeeding.
That is reality. Not some wishful thinking or emotional outbursts about both candidates being equal or who won't do anything to improve the country.
-
???????????????? Come again?
My truth is not "based on [my] own selfish desires as much or more than "reality"". My truth is taken directly from reality. I may not like what it says, but I have learned to live within the constraints of reality and not emotional outbursts.
This is pure emotion on your part: "Neither one of the two will do anything to improve our country."
The reality is, we don't know what either of them will do. You have no basis in fact to make your claim. However, it would be a long shot to say that if Romney can enact even 10% of what he says on his website with regards to taxes, dividends, capital gains, AMT, etc. the country will be better off than it is now. And when you compare it to what Obama is likely to do, the difference is even more profound.
Neither of them are likely to push down the real reforms that are needed for long term health. But Ron Paul, if elected, would not get them passed either since he would be a minority with a Congress against him. So, for now I will take incremental short term gains. And we can work to create an environment in which real long term reforms have a hope of being passed and succeeding.
That is reality. Not some wishful thinking or emotional outbursts about both candidates being equal or who won't do anything to improve the country.
-
I've had no emotional outbursts on the subject. I'm stating my position calmly and rationally. You look at my position as misguided and I look at yours the same way. You have no evidence that Romney will enact anything meaningful or beneficial. You have the campaign promises/lies that he's using to get himself elected.
All you've stated so far is your willingness to to do a double-jointed gymnastic move to justify abdicating your principles. I'm more than willing to vote for a candidate that only supports half of what I believe in. I'm not willing to abdicate 80% of my beliefs to do so.
The worst you could reasonablly call me is something of an anarchist. I'm not going to put gas in Obama's tank, but I'm not going to siphon gas from his tank to put in the likes of Romney's.
If Obama wants to destroy the country, then the GOP didn't try very ****ing hard to stop him. My point is simple. Try...Harder...
If they're unwilling to do any better, then 4 more years of Obama is what they deserve. Asking me to support the likes of Romney is no different than Obama asking the country to support the health care needs of those who are unwilling or uncaring to do it themselves.
I expect better of the GOP. You get what you give, and they ain't gave for shit. :mad:
I've had no emotional outbursts on the subject. I'm stating my position calmly and rationally.
really?
but don't want to vote for these offensive shitbags anymore?
Come again?
You look at my position as misguided and I look at yours the same way. You have no evidence that Romney will enact anything meaningful or beneficial. You have the campaign promises/lies that he's using to get himself elected.
All you've stated so far is your willingness to to do a double-jointed gymnastic move to justify abdicating your principles. I'm more than willing to vote for a candidate that only supports half of what I believe in. I'm not willing to abdicate 80% of my beliefs to do so.
The worst you could reasonablly call me is something of an anarchist. I'm not going to put gas in Obama's tank, but I'm not going to siphon gas from his tank to put in the likes of Romney's.
If Obama wants to destroy the country, then the GOP didn't try very ****ing hard to stop him. My point is simple. Try...Harder...
If they're unwilling to do any better, then 4 more years of Obama is what they deserve. Asking me to support the likes of Romney is no different than Obama asking the country to support the health care needs of those who are unwilling or uncaring to do it themselves.
I expect better of the GOP. You get what you give, and they ain't gave for shit. :mad:
really?
Come again?
Interesting that you can read emotions in a text based medium. Are you clairvoyant as well? :rolleyes:
This thread really wasn't intended to go down this road gentlemen. The discussion revolves around the likelihood of Mrs. Rice to be designated as Vice President, not whether someone wants to go and pout in the corner on election day.
Point is intended to be that she has a good head on her shoulders and can sway many minority votes. I know the latter concept has become tedious, but overall this can be good in the long run even after the election, as like it or not we need the minority masses on our side. Not via pandering like Biden the clown, but through genuine and also successful leadership.
This thread really wasn't intended to go down this road gentlemen. The discussion revolves around the likelihood of Mrs. Rice to be designated as Vice President, not whether someone wants to go and pout in the corner on election day.
Point is intended to be that she has a good head on her shoulders and can sway many minority votes. I know the latter concept has become tedious, but overall this can be good in the long run even after the election, as like it or not we need the minority masses on our side. Not via pandering like Biden the clown, but through genuine and also successful leadership.
What about Marco Rubio? He doesn't have the Bush stigma.
Belmont31R
07-13-12, 17:07
This thread really wasn't intended to go down this road gentlemen. The discussion revolves around the likelihood of Mrs. Rice to be designated as Vice President, not whether someone wants to go and pout in the corner on election day.
Point is intended to be that she has a good head on her shoulders and can sway many minority votes. I know the latter concept has become tedious, but overall this can be good in the long run even after the election, as like it or not we need the minority masses on our side. Not via pandering like Biden the clown, but through genuine and also successful leadership.
Blacks only represent about 13% of the population. Assuming even one quarter of them actually vote....and someone like rice sways even 15% of blacks to vote for Romney thats 15% of 25% of all black people or less than .5% of the total population.
I think even her swaying 15% of voting blacks is generous. Blacks who don't vote democrat or are not democrats are uncle toms, race traitors, and sell outs. Their liberal masters have done too well of a job on them.
As to her personally she seems like a very bright woman, and her pinky has more FP experience than Obama and Biden combined. She is speaks multiple languages, and I think she would be a good person for the job.
This thread really wasn't intended to go down this road gentlemen. The discussion revolves around the likelihood of Mrs. Rice to be designated as Vice President, not whether someone wants to go and pout in the corner on election day.
Point is intended to be that she has a good head on her shoulders and can sway many minority votes. I know the latter concept has become tedious, but overall this can be good in the long run even after the election, as like it or not we need the minority masses on our side. Not via pandering like Biden the clown, but through genuine and also successful leadership.
Agreed. I'm not so sure that she didn't learn a lesson in regards to Rumsfeld & Cheney. One she seems unlikely to repeat. By that I mean that I doubt she'll ever return to the inner circle of the WH.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/condoleezza-rice-stands-vp-prospects-no-way-181823611.html
What about Marco Rubio?
Another excellent choice. The man comes from a hard working family, has all the right values and as a youngster told anyone who would listen that he was destined to be President. I just get a good gut feeling about him overall, and the fact that he is hispanic is honestly an extra bonus...again, the latter all things carefully considered.
Blacks only represent about 13% of the population. Assuming even one quarter of them actually vote....and someone like rice sways even 15% of blacks to vote for Romney thats 15% of 25% of all black people or less than .5% of the total population.
We have the blacks but also the hispanics, who often but not always follow the lead of their fellow minority. Then there are the feel good white folks that just want to blindly appease the minorities who themselves might become swayed.
And personally I'd really and truly prefer a country where color has no political boundaries and where dysfunctional pandering becomes obsolete. Surely most here would say the same.
Belmont31R
07-13-12, 17:52
We have the blacks but also the hispanics, who often but not always follow the lead of their fellow minority. Then there are the feel good white folks that just want to blindly appease the minorities who themselves might become swayed.
And personally I'd really and truly prefer a country where color has no political boundaries and where dysfunctional pandering becomes obsolete. Surely most here would say the same.
Im just saying if pandering is the motive then its a useless endeavor given the odds I calculated out.
Personally I have no issue with her and all things considered believe she could be a catalyst for a successful election outcome. I would also be comfortable with her leading the country if needed, as she has demonstrated both capability and also overall sensibility.
I have no links to offer, just heard about an hr ago via two credible sources. We'll see how this plays out, but I think it would be a positive development all current circumstances carefully considered.
Actually if we had ran her, instead of McCain back in 2008 we might not be in this mess.
Mauser KAR98K
07-13-12, 19:56
Oh dear god I heard it today. She isn't Pro-Life. There goes the country straight to hell. Course last time I checked, we are heading there full speed ahead with a meth-head at the helm.
If it is all about social issues then the conservatives need to look at just three.
Life: self-defense of you and/or your family.
Liberty: going across state lines freely to Washington D.C. and yell, "Hey ****tards, amateur hour is over!"
Pursuit of Happiness: making honest money and able to use the opportunities to make an ass load more and buy that house you wanted, or the fifth place trophy wife you thought was good enough.
Romney's campaign slogan needs to be KISS: Keep It Simple, Smartasses.
Another excellent choice. The man comes from a hard working family, has all the right values and as a youngster told anyone who would listen that he was destined to be President. I just get a good gut feeling about him overall, and the fact that he is hispanic is honestly an extra bonus...again, the latter all things carefully considered.
Exactly...and he has charisma and is well spoken. Not that Condi isn't but she's just kind of the academic that doesn't seem to really get fired up about anything. One of the few things I agreed with Michael Savage today when I happened across his program. That and the Romney campaign needs to come out guns blazing when these insidious, unfounded attacks come out instead of just being passively defensive.
Belmont31R
07-13-12, 20:39
I like Rand Paul, Rubio, and West. Ryan seems like he'd do a lot better without the RINO county club in charge.
Instead we get these old has bens without the public speaking ability and are as dull as a bag of charcoal. Listening to romney is like listening to white noise while Im trying to go to sleep. His "exciting" moments are a guy under the stage with a cattle prod and 3x5 card with cues written on them.
Republicans need younger and more diverse candidates. Doesn't mean pandering to communist minorities but the old rich white guy routine isn't working....
Interesting that you can read emotions in a text based medium. Are you clairvoyant as well? :rolleyes:
Now you are really stretching it. I quoted a comment from you that has no objective meaning but a clear emotional one and you try and deny it with flippant remarks?
Come now.
:rolleyes: back at you.
----
with regards Rice as VP. I am not sure it would be a good idea and I doubt she would accept. She is too smart for that.
----
Yawn....
Hurrah - another Bush era Neoconman. A perfect fit for the Mittens Administration.
Clearly the crack brain trust that ran the McCain campaign is hard at work again to ensure Obama gets elected. We saw this movie in 2008 - didn't turn out so well.
In truth, Allen West is the only choice for Ramney. Of course, he won't pick West and thus, we will get 4 more years of President Foodstamp.
Good job!
Listening to romney is like listening to white noise while Im trying to go to sleep. His "exciting" moments are a guy under the stage with a cattle prod and 3x5 card with cues written on them.
I am picturing him letting out a Howard Dean yell. :D
Battle*Hound
07-14-12, 17:42
You're not going to vote? One of our most cherished and important duties as a citizen of this country is to vote. That right has been paid for with the blood of patriots and warriors. In matters not to me who you vote for. The higher the percentage of voter turnout the more that worries politicians. They can con some of the people some of the time but they can't con all the people all of the time. It scares them when they know that we are paying attention. Please reconsider. Critical times are upon us.
Well said.
And seriously, four more of this lying, worthless, ignorant, piece of shit we have...you might as well hang it up. Vote...vote to end this nightmare of a presidency.:sad:
Battle*Hound
07-14-12, 17:45
While she certainly has the credentials, I am saying that many people would argue that her race, AND gender, would be an important reason why she would be picked as a running mate. To get the black and female vote.
At this point---let's play the game then!
Battle*Hound
07-14-12, 17:49
Not me. She's smart and extremely capable. She would destroy Biden in debates.
It would be an absolutely joy to watch!!
Battle*Hound
07-14-12, 17:56
Both parties have proven, time and time again, that they are not to be trusted.
The fact is that Mitt Romney is NOT worth voting for. He sold Massachusetts down the river, and if you think he isn't going to do the exact same thing on the federal level, you must be smoking some good stuff...
Damn it guys!!! WE ALL KNOW that both parties are crooked in there own ways. We all know that Mittens is not the best choice. He is however the best choice we have this time around!!!! Wake the FK up!! This country is in an absolute tailspin. The first step is to rid this nation of the current asshole. Afterwards, we can figure out the next step.
montanadave
07-14-12, 18:26
Folks are welcome to talk shit about "the current asshole" till they're blue in the face but the sad and undeniable truth is this country was in a complete ****in' tailspin before he ever walked in the door.
How about we just make Romney an honorary ex-POTUS and skip the repeat cluster****?
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
You're not going to vote? One of our most cherished and important duties as a citizen of this country is to vote. That right has been paid for with the blood of patriots and warriors. In matters not to me who you vote for. The higher the percentage of voter turnout the more that worries politicians. They can con some of the people some of the time but they can't con all the people all of the time. It scares them when they know that we are paying attention. Please reconsider. Critical times are upon us.
Please explain the difference between Omao and Romneys record? I'll cast my ballot but might leave the presidential vote blank.
Can't skip the continued charlie foxtrot unless we get rid of the loser who's currently perpetrating it. That's the first step. Just about ANYONE else would be better than our current situation. Hillary's about the only one who could possibly do worse than another four years of this mess.
I'm no fan of either the Democrats or the Clintons, but I have to say I think Hillary would almost certainly make a better president than Zero.
Sure Dave, we were in a mess when Obama was elected, but has he done anything to improve the situation? Not really. Unemployment still hovers in the 8% range, the stimulus and auto bailout were basically kickbacks to the unions and accomplished little other than adding to the already gargantuan national debt, economic growth is only marginally above inflation (actually, there are more than a few economists who've argued inflation is undervalued and growth has been overvalued). Do we really need four more years for you to admit that this guy has been another abysmal failure like Carter?
A lot of people would argue a race card on her selection...
I instantly thought of O Brother Where Art Thou when Pappy O'Daniel said "We'd look like some Johnny come lately parading out our own midget no matter how stumpy"
lifebreath
07-14-12, 22:13
Potus doesn't have the power to undo what has been done economically. That's more market forces combined with policies that have monetized envy and the Fed. What o has done is pushed more social program and policies that perpetuate the problems.
We need someone who will at the least have strong foreign policy, a commitment to strong military, and social policies that curtail the "progressive" (read socialist) agenda. Obama has been about as bad as we could have ever gotten in this regard.
Anyone who allows their vote to not count against Obama remaining in office is contributing to the continued slide into all-out socialism.
Folks are welcome to talk shit about "the current asshole" till they're blue in the face but the sad and undeniable truth is this country was in a complete ****ing' tailspin before he ever walked in the door.
You're a well spoken fellow Dave, and despite our differences I believe that at the very least you often add what I will call "constructive dimensions" to forum discussions. That said, your feeble and completely unfounded attempts to defend the atrocity filling the void of a real President are becoming loathsome at this critical juncture.
How about you just give it a break or spend your time posting at MSNBC or Huffington, as they would recieve such brainless tripe far better than we. And also maybe take a moment to consider that our impostor of a President and his racist Attorney General would have this forum in which you spend so much time posting in become obsolete in a heartbeat if possible. In fact I believe they would envision the day when I could be prosecuted for writing this paragraph, absolutely and positively.
Think about it and stop being an ideologue, you're fighting against yourself whether you know it or not.
How about we just make Romney an honorary ex-POTUS and skip the repeat cluster****?
I'm in. It hasn't occurred to anyone here that Romney could be worse than BHO. Why? Because he'll have a great many republicans in lock step with any and every usurpation and power grab and horrible idea he has.
At least with BHO in there, the republicans are united in full opposition. Romney's record demonstrates a very similar POV and agenda as BHO (including gun control), but he'll have some conservatives that ought to know better (like all of you) vote yes on all kinds of bs thinking they're "towing the party line". The GOP doesn't speak for me anymore. The TEA Party does, but their candidates need to break away and run separate IMO.
Sorry, I'm not voting for gun control, bailouts, abortion, socialized anything, indefinite detention of Americans without due process, warrant less spying, deficit spending, no plan to reduce the debt, etc.
He doesn't line up with me at all. Not even a little. He's not even honest, he changes his stance depending on which type of crowd he's speaking to, just like BHO. The guy's a plastic man neocon puppet.
He doesn't line up with me at all. Not even a little. He's not even honest, he changes his stance depending on which type of crowd he's speaking to, just like BHO. The guy's a plastic man neocon puppet.
Well at least we know that your frustrations are leading you to take real and meaningful action as opposed to hiding in the corner on election day. Fantastic job, be proud and certainly stay on your hollow course.
Battle*Hound
07-14-12, 23:08
Folks are welcome to talk shit about "the current asshole" till they're blue in the face but the sad and undeniable truth is this country was in a complete ****in' tailspin before he ever walked in the door.
How about we just make Romney an honorary ex-POTUS and skip the repeat cluster****?
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
I cant argue with much of that...but it sure as hell hasn't gotten one bit better and it seems he is in favor of further decline.
Battle*Hound
07-14-12, 23:16
You're a well spoken fellow Dave, and despite our differences I believe that at the very least you often add what I will call "constructive dimensions" to forum discussions. That said, your feeble and completely unfounded attempts to defend the atrocity filling the void of a real President are becoming loathsome at this critical juncture.
.
Well Said Safety:)
Well Said Safety:)
+1
OMG here comes the pile on :rolleyes:
Going back to something I said earlier:
Who was better: Benedict Arnold or Lord Charles Cornwallis?
If you'd say neither, both were un-American traitorous scumbag tyrants, then you begin to see where I'm coming from.
I don't care if some have convinced themselves that Arnold is "a little bit better". Neither one would mean anything but more disaster for this former republic. And I will stand among those who see this farce for what it is and exempt myself from supporting it as best as I can.
Proverbs 25:26, “Like a muddied spring or a polluted well are the righteous who give way to the wicked.”
The VERY LAST THING this nation needs are Neocons (and those who call themselves anything but and carry out the very same foreign policy).
"Kinda Sleazy" shouldn't be near the White House. Check her background; read HER OWN words and balance them against the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Please explain the difference between Omao and Romneys record? I'll cast my ballot but might leave the presidential vote blank.
I can't, or rather I won't explain the differences. It's up to you to decide. I have always considered voting as a citizen's duty. Since it has been brought to our attention that it is neither a duty, or a right, but rather a privilege, I'll take that privilege and consider it my moral obligation to exercise that privilege for as long as I can.
I will also use that privilege not only for the Presidential elections but for all elections. The elections at the town, city, county, state, and federal levels are just as important. It starts in your community and grows from there. It's mind numbing at times trying to find out which candidate stands for what, which ones best fulfill mine and this country's needs, but at the end of election day, I feel pretty damn good giving it my best shot.
I can't, or rather I won't explain the differences. It's up to you to decide. I have always considered voting as a citizen's duty. Since it has been brought to our attention that it is neither a duty, or a right, but rather a privilege, I'll take that privilege and consider it my moral obligation to exercise that privilege for as long as I can.
I will also use that privilege not only for the Presidential elections but for all elections. The elections at the town, city, county, state, and federal levels are just as important. It starts in your community and grows from there. It's mind numbing at times trying to find out which candidate stands for what, which ones best fulfill mine and this country's needs, but at the end of election day, I feel pretty damn good giving it my best shot.
It was a rhetorical question. There isn't a difference. He passed an awb and state run health care. Two examples that show our constitution will continue to be used as toilet paper in the "war on terror". He might know how to make a buck, however the purchasing power of that dollar will continue to be eroded as mittens isn't for ending The Fed. The shows me where he stands on true economic liberty. He has as much foreign policy experience as omaoa did. In 2008 Omao received the most campaign money in history from the banks. Mittens is set to break that record. As such, you will continue to see more mf globals and no prosecution, just a dog and pony show.
montanadave
07-15-12, 06:41
You're a well spoken fellow Dave, and despite our differences I believe that at the very least you often add what I will call "constructive dimensions" to forum discussions. That said, your feeble and completely unfounded attempts to defend the atrocity filling the void of a real President are becoming loathsome at this critical juncture.
What in my previous post did you construe as as an attempt to defend the current administration? That is complete conjecture on your part.
I have repeatedly been highly critical of many actions taken by the Obama administration, ranging from energy policy to F&F to the Affordable Care Act. What I haven't done, much to the ire of a vocal cohort here, is engage in a blanket condemnation of Obama as the devil incarnate whose sole mission is the wholesale destruction of this nation by means of a vast web of conspiratorial intrigue.
But my most severe criticism of the current administration stems from Obama's perpetuation and support of many of the policies enacted by the previous Republican administration, including the usurping of civil liberties by the loathsome Patriot Act, turning the nation's monetary policy over to a cabal of Wall Street insiders, and continuing to expend American blood and treasure pursuing a foreign policy in the the Middle East and Central Asia which history has proven time and again to be an exercise in futility.
You are right about one thing. I am deeply conflicted. Anyone who is willing to open their eyes and take a long hard look at what this country's leadership has provided us over the past 20-25 years would be a fool not to be.
But I reject the assertion that I am the ideologue. That label seems far more appropriate for others who continually pound the same drum in these discussions.
It was a rhetorical question. There isn't a difference. He passed an awb and state run health care. Two examples that show our constitution will continue to be used as toilet paper in the "war on terror". He might know how to make a buck, however the purchasing power of that dollar will continue to be eroded as mittens isn't for ending The Fed. The shows me where he stands on true economic liberty. He has as much foreign policy experience as omaoa did. In 2008 Omao received the most campaign money in history from the banks. Mittens is set to break that record. As such, you will continue to see more mf globals and no prosecution, just a dog and pony show.
+1
Mitt is shit. I won't attend the game if the teams are this awful.
+1
Mitt is shit. I won't attend the game if the teams are this awful.
Then you better figure on sitting at home with a bowl of popcorn then,
your choices for Pres. are..
.1 Asshole "A"
.2 Asshole "B"
Tweak their messages a little, and they're pretty much interchangeable..
For those that really can't decide, seek out footage of Biden's pandering speech to the NAACP last week. He asked the agenda filled bunch, in dramatic fashion of course, if they could envision what the Justice Dept and Supreme Court would become should Romney get elected.
I'll ask the same question here, but from a reverse standpoint. If you think it won't make a difference feel free to explain why. I'd say that 4 more years of ass clown and his racist side kick accompanied by one to two more liberal justices and we'll have many more serious issues than we have now.
VooDoo6Actual
07-15-12, 09:10
CON-di's Rosen / Weissman / AIPAC / Wolfowitz (who's dirtier than a Tijuana whore, former World Bank head & confirmed Neo-Con) fiasco is only the tip of the Iceberg on Con-di. There are copius amounts & layers.
You can't roll in it without getting any on you....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/03/usa.israel
Please stick with the Condi Rice as VP choice topic. If you want to discuss the presidential candidates, there is another topic for that.
Dirk Williams
07-15-12, 11:20
This thread has been amusing. Very good points pointed out, both sides. Seems like there is no real choice once again.
Can this country survive another 4 years of Barry's policy's . I don't know. I've read every book I can regarding him or his views. I've tried hard to educate myself regarding is agenda.
My observation is that Mitt is also not what we need. Yet I simply can not be apart of Barry's re election, he is wrong for this nation and history will not be kind to him.
Could Rice be any worse for the county then who's driving now. I was amused by rums fields portrayal of her. I can't help but think that unless your in his corner your not going to be very pilar, in fact his character assignation of her only strengthens my personal like of her.
She appears to have not bent to his will, which I see as a good thing. She may not have been right all the time but then neither was he. She stood her ground and supported her position. That says a lot about her convictions.
She would make a better baseball commissioner then vp, however I have to support ANYBODY but OBAMA at this time.
DW
CON-di's Rosen / Weissman / AIPAC / Wolfowitz (who's dirtier than a Tijuana whore, former World Bank head & confirmed Neo-Con) fiasco is only the tip of the Iceberg on "Con"-di. There are copius amounts & layers.
You can't roll in it without getting any on you....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/03/usa.israel
Given that article is 5 years old and there is no follow-up about her actual testimony, I was hoping that you might have something more resent to contribute regarding Dr. Rice's nefarious dealings.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big Condi fan for the reasons that I previously mentioned. I just hoped to see more layers to this shit sandwich that you claim.
VooDoo6Actual
07-15-12, 12:45
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141914#.UAMB3o58PzJ
http://fontesabertas.blogspot.com/2011/01/wikileaks-us-orders-to-spy-on-israel.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks
Your welcome.
I'm in. It hasn't occurred to anyone here that Romney could be worse than BHO..... The guy's a plastic man neocon puppet.
Indeed.
Sorry kids, Bush was horrible. We knew that in 1999. Every conservative had to hold their nose and vote for him (twice!). Once the Gops held the Congress and the White House they spent money like the Dems - only now they simply funded their pet boondoggles. They got us into a very poorly managed war without a clear objective, under questionable circumstances. Did everyone forget this?
Then we had the Tea Party revolt. Even the Establishment Gops hate the Tea Party because we are looking to rid ourselves of the RINOs and politics as usual cronyism that has put us in this sad situation.
There is no point in winning the House, Senate, and the White House only to end up with more of the same failed policies.
How is putting Neocon-D on the ticket going to make things better? Really, how?
Ramney needs Tea Party support more than he needs 'independents' (disaffected moderate Dems). Allen West is the only logical choice. Despite 0bama's failures, the race is still tied. Ramney needs to do something decisive soon.
Now, for everyone who is planning to stay home - don't do that! Even if you do not vote for Ramney you still need to vote for the most conservative guys on the ticket in your local elections, and congressional elections. Get involved, stay involved, and keep the Tea Party pressure on the Gops.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141914#.UAMB3o58PzJ
http://fontesabertas.blogspot.com/2011/01/wikileaks-us-orders-to-spy-on-israel.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks
Your welcome.
Thanks man, that's good to known. She signed orders instructing US Officials to spy on Israel. It appears that she is an anti-Semitic bitch. No way am I voting for Romney if that Palistanian-loving whore is on the ticket.
montanadave
07-15-12, 15:33
Thanks man, that's good to known. She signed orders instructing US Officials to spy on Israel. It appears that she is an anti-Semitic bitch. No way am I voting for Romney if that Palistanian-loving whore is on the ticket.
Stop! You're killin' me! :lol:
Spying on Israel! GOD forbid we spy on Israel. It's not like they would spy on us or anything.. Just saying.. :blink: Cheers.. Ron
Littlelebowski
07-15-12, 15:37
Thanks man, that's good to known. She signed orders instructing US Officials to spy on Israel. It appears that she is an anti-Semitic bitch. No way am I voting for Romney if that Palistanian-loving whore is on the ticket.
I'm with ya man, anything less than giving Israel a few blank checks and access to all of our technology and intel is anti-Semitic. Good thing we have our Jewish American politicians in office to take care of our rights and Israel's welfare. People like Waxman, Feinstein, Reid, and Schumer.
VooDoo6Actual
07-15-12, 15:39
Brutal.
Littlelebowski
07-15-12, 15:48
Spying on Israel! GOD forbid we spy on Israel. It's not like they would spy on us or anything.. Just saying.. :blink: Cheers.. Ron
And if we dare to spy on Israel..... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)
Indeed.
Sorry kids, Bush was horrible. We knew that in 1999. Every conservative had to hold their nose and vote for him (twice!). Once the Gops held the Congress and the White House they spent money like the Dems - only now they simply funded their pet boondoggles. They got use into a very poorly managed war with clear objective, under questionable circumstances. Did everyone forget this?
Not I sir.
Then we had the Tea Party revolt. Even the Establishment Gops hate the Tea Party because we are looking to rid ourselves of the RINOs and politics as usual cronyism that has put us in this sad situation.
There is no point in winning the House, Senate, and the White House only to end up with more of the same failed policies.
How is putting Neocon-D on the ticket going to make things better? Really, how?
Ramney needs Tea Party support more than he needs 'independents' (disaffected moderate Dems). Allen West is the only logical choice. Despite 0bama's failures, the race is still tied. Ramney needs to do something decisive soon.
Perhaps change his view on something 180 again? :eek:
Now, for everyone who is planning to stay home - don't do that! Even if you do not vote for Ramney you still need to vote for the most conservative guys on the ticket in your local elections, and congressional elections. Get involved, stay involved, and keep the Tea Party pressure on the Gops.
I will vote, but I will vote my conscience, which may be third party and or a write in. Considering how worthless the two major offerings are, I truly can't see the "lesser of two evils" in those choices and will 'throw away' my vote, but vote I will. I do think if more people truly voted their conscience over party line, we may actually improve who leads the country. It has to start some place...
There's local regional stuff to vote on also, etc.
And if we dare to spy on Israel..... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)
And it was the worst kind of spying. The witch wanted the personal email addresses and cell phone numbers of Israeli officials. She even tried to find out their attitudes on American policy. I bet that she was responsible for all of those 2AM drunk calls to Netanyahu. GOD DAMNIT!
I don't think Rice is seriously being considered for VP. I think that was some backyard rumor that got misconstrued and put on the Drudge Report and taken from there by the media.
---
Now, for everyone who is planning to stay home - don't do that! Even if you do not vote for Ramney you still need to vote for the most conservative guys on the ticket in your local elections, and congressional elections. Get involved, stay involved, and keep the Tea Party pressure on the Gops.
Exactly. We need to take the senate back and elect reps with a spine to put the executive branch back on a leash.
Edit: and there's a lot of states passing legislation to circumvent the federal level overstepping its bounds or not doing their job.
I don't think anyone will call her stupid, but there are those that will call her a "sell out" and or an "Uncle Tom".
Bingo.
Littlelebowski
07-15-12, 17:08
And it was the worst kind of spying. The witch wanted the personal email addresses and cell phone numbers of Israeli officials. She even tried to find out their attitudes on American policy. I bet that she was responsible for all of those 2AM drunk calls to Netanyahu. GOD DAMNIT!
You'd think the anti-Semites would release Pollard (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/176819-obama-faces-pressure-to-release-pollard-to-improve-jewish-american-ties) already!
I don't think Rice is seriously being considered for VP. I think that was some backyard rumor that got misconstrued and put on the Drudge Report and taken from there by the media.
---
Either way, it works in the left's favor: Either the GOP is racist for selecting her or racist for not selecting her. Gotta love how the race card works.
Thanks man, that's good to known. She signed orders instructing US Officials to spy on Israel. It appears that she is an anti-Semitic bitch. No way am I voting for Romney if that Palistanian-loving whore is on the ticket.
They spy on us all the time....
They spy on us all the time....
I know. I'm being sarcastic. I have no problem with Condi's actions as described in the articles that HOP provided. While she is not my first choice for VP, I'm not sure that I'm buying the assertion that she would be bad for the country.
sometimes you have to make choices that are tough and go with one that's the better of the two !
thats just life !
I guess then you are OK with obama is your stance ? since he did not vote on many things also ! sounds like you two must think alike then :)
It would be nice to be able to disagree with you guys without being labeled a self righteous coward.
Whatever. I don't say or do things based on what's popular or PC. I follow my heart, and couldn't care less who thinks less of me because of it.
I plan on voting in every other race besides Presidential, and even then, I still may. Just not for the douche or the turd sandwich. You guys have fun getting conned by the two-party dictatorship that has done us wonders of ruin; the ping-pong game from hell. I'm not playing anymore.
Cowardice would be supporting a broken system despite your better judgement. Cowardice would be casting away your principles and supporting more tyranny and ruin because everyone else is. Cowardice is voting for evil period, no matter whether it's the lesser or the greater. Cowardice is staying silent when you know you're bound to catch some flak for speaking your opinion, due to its' unpopularity.
What're you fellas gonna say next? Perhaps you'll revert to the tried and true "You're either with us or the terrorists.". Or how about "Well, if you don't like America, you can get out."
Cast your ballots for the same ****ing despots that got us here, and tell me I'M UNPATRIOTIC???
AM I THE ONLY SANE PERSON LEFT ON PLANET EARTH???
Grow a pair, and reject those that work to ruin you and your rights and sell your children down the river. I will not comply.
voting republican or democrat is simple to me
and I have said this before and its my response
its like asking do you want to be hit in the right side of the face or the left side of the face ! when we are saying dont hit us at all !!!
now just maybe romney has a pussy hit cause obamas hits are pretty hard and the left side of my face is swollen and beaten enough !
so I would rather get hit on the right ? hope he slaps like a girl and I dont eve feel it !!!
not voting is giving away your vote ! do the math!!
voting republican or democrat is simple to me
and I have said this before and its my response
its like asking do you want to be hit in the right side of the face or the left side of the face ! when we are saying dont hit us at all !!!
now just maybe romney has a pussy hit cause obamas hits are pretty hard and the left side of my face is swollen and beaten enough !
so I would rather get hit on the right ? hope he slaps like a girl and I dont eve feel it !!!
not voting is giving away your vote ! do the math!!
I completely understand where you and the other fellas are coming from. I do.
But, keeping with your metaphor, wouldn't voting for one of them be the equivalent of agreeing to be punched in the face? You have to admit that's a pretty terrible situation and an even more terrible plan of action. Nobody punches me in the face, and nobody gets me to ask them to do it again.
Both sides here make some good points. The "I'm not happy about Romney, but he'll get my vote because I'd vote for a bag of used cat litter before I'd vote for BHO" crowd has some merit.
And the "I'm sick of big spending, big government progressives period. Whether they have an R or a D in front of their names, they aren't getting my vote." also has some merit.
Ultimately, whatever course of action allows us to feel most satisfied is the correct one.
yes it is but again its more lesser of two evils when their is no other choice would you want your hand removed or say well lets just loose the whole arm !
I think also at this point obama is more like OK cut your hand off or the infection will kill you ! hmm no hand or no life ?
I completely understand where you and the other fellas are coming from. I do.
But, keeping with your metaphor, wouldn't voting for one of them be the equivalent of agreeing to be punched in the face? You have to admit that's a pretty terrible situation and an even more terrible plan of action. Nobody punches me in the face, and nobody gets me to ask them to do it again.
Both sides here make some good points. The "I'm not happy about Romney, but he'll get my vote because I'd vote for a bag of used cat litter before I'd vote for BHO" crowd has some merit.
And the "I'm sick of big spending, big government progressives period. Whether they have an R or a D in front of their names, they aren't getting my vote." also has some merit.
Ultimately, whatever course of action allows us to feel most satisfied is the correct one.
hmm no hand or no life ?
Live Free or Die
montanadave
07-16-12, 05:47
Live Free or Die
Touche'
kaiservontexas
07-16-12, 10:22
It's not Rice. It is Pawlenty.
The fact that Pawlenty is bringing up the rear on the Drudge poll speaks volumes. Nobody knows who he is or cares. People want someone like Rubio, Rice, or Jindal. If they push another old white boring person alongside Romney, they're done. They're purposely trying to lose.
Umm, yeah, that whole idea worked for the country well last time.
At this point, I'd pick the douche over the shit sandwich we have been eating recently.
Me too. None of them is perfect. None of us are either.
While she certainly has the credentials, I am saying that many people would argue that her race, AND gender, would be an important reason why she would be picked as a running mate. To get the black and female vote.
She would get this white male vote.
Not me. She's smart and extremely capable. She would destroy Biden in debates.
What about Marco Rubio? He doesn't have the Bush stigma.
He would be an excellent choice. Jindal would too. The fact that Cheeney and Rumsfield hate Rice should do a bit to quiet the Bush stigma.
As to her personally she seems like a very bright woman, and her pinky has more FP experience than Obama and Biden combined. She is speaks multiple languages, and I think she would be a good person for the job.
She would be an excellent person for the job and would add so much experience to the ticket.
It's not Rice. It is Pawlenty.
Worst choice of all.
kaiservontexas
07-16-12, 22:01
Worst choice of all.
I do not even know who he is to be honest. I never heard his name before, so, I am not going to disagree.
I have heard all the other names mentioned in this thread but his, which makes me wonder what they are thinking?
The fact that Cheeney and Rumsfield hate Rice should do a bit to quiet the Bush stigma.
You'd think that, but those hysterical libtards couldn't give two shits. Hell, they're still blaming bush for crap that's happening now! :mad:
You'd think that, but those hysterical libtards couldn't give two shits. Hell, they're still blaming bush for crap that's happening now! :mad:
Maybe they are on to something...
Just saying...
Maybe they are on to something...
Just saying...
Sorry, I don't follow you on that. Care to expound on it?
Sorry, I don't follow you on that. Care to expound on it?
PATRIOT Acts? Remember any Executive Orders he signed? Military Commissions Act?
Any of this ring a bell?
The man was no patriot.
PATRIOT Acts? Remember any Executive Orders he signed? Military Commissions Act?
Any of this ring a bell?
The man was no patriot.
* Indefinite Detention with no due process for US citizens.
* Warrantless wiretaps
*Big deficit spender (which BHO has made look like pocket change)
*Said/Did nothing as the Fed created a bubble by keeping interest rates artificially low.
* Supported/Signed TARP, the biggest collectivist piece of shit ever foisted on America.
He did a few things right. He did more things wrong.
REMEMBER:
Country before Party
You'd think that, but those hysterical libtards couldn't give two shits. Hell, they're still blaming bush for crap that's happening now! :mad:
I know it is frustrating. Their guy has been at the helm for almost a full term.
I know it is frustrating. Their guy has been at the helm for almost a full term.
"My guy"? Both the neocons and liberals would find intolerable as he/she would enforce the Constitution and respect the Bill of Rights...
PATRIOT Acts? Remember any Executive Orders he signed? Military Commissions Act?
Any of this ring a bell?
The man was no patriot.
You went off the rails on me. We were talking about Condi, not Bush. I agree with all that you posted. What has BHO done about it? Nothing. He's signed even more bullshit into law and even more EO's. Will Romney be any better? Nope! Which is why I won't vote for him. My candidate would do exactly what you said as well.
All I was saying is that Cheney and Rummy not liking Condi wouldn't make her any less evil in the eyes of the flaming libs. She was probably the most sane voice in that cabal. Yet all they will see is "Evil Bushie...Bad!". :(
You went off the rails on me. We were talking about Condi, not Bush. I agree with all that you posted. What has BHO done about it? Nothing. He's signed even more bullshit into law and even more EO's. Will Romney be any better? Nope! Which is why I won't vote for him. My candidate would do exactly what you said as well.
All I was saying is that Cheney and Rummy not liking Condi wouldn't make her any less evil in the eyes of the flaming libs. She was probably the most sane voice in that cabal. Yet all they will see is "Evil Bushie...Bad!". :(
Yep, guilt by association. After all, we are talking about the general public here. The libs are already going to go on full assault regardless of who it is...but...all they have to do is bring up Bush or tell their voters she's evil and was the mastermind behind everything Bush did and we all know foolish people all along the political spectrum would believe it or at least question their decision at the voting booth.
The latest Bill Whittle video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJFgWA8odBM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
BHO is a little pecker head, and ought to be rotting away in solitary for the rest of his wicked life.
That article sucks. It doesn't have anything new to say, and doesn't go into depth on anything either.
Thanks anyways, for sharing it at least
You went off the rails on me. We were talking about Condi, not Bush. I agree with all that you posted. What has BHO done about it? Nothing. He's signed even more bullshit into law and even more EO's. Will Romney be any better? Nope! Which is why I won't vote for him. My candidate would do exactly what you said as well.
All I was saying is that Cheney and Rummy not liking Condi wouldn't make her any less evil in the eyes of the flaming libs. She was probably the most sane voice in that cabal. Yet all they will see is "Evil Bushie...Bad!". :(
No, you mentioned Bush.
I think Powell was the best of that sorry bunch.
And Obama was convinced to keep neocons on his cabinet...
His admin has been a disappointment in several areas as well.
There has been no direct confrontation with Russia. Yet. So I applaud that. But there is always tomorrow...
I tire of the non-thinking members of both positions who put party above the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I tire of the non-thinking members of both positions who put party above the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
http://img.tapatalk.com/93b13e5d-6ddd-2d6e.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/93b13e5d-6ddd-2d6e.jpg
nic pic, but its too late for that. You cant turn an aircraft carrier on a dime - slow and steady turns. We already have a ton of constitutionalist types in office from the 2010 election.
I agree, Romney is no Founing Father.
...But hes not socialist and he'll get my vote.
While you're thinking about that, think about this:
If we elect Romney and a bunch of constitusionalists(Congress) to office we can get shit done.
If we elect Obama and a bunch of constitutionalists to office - we're done. Game over. Might as well give up on life and begin sucking on the government teet like half the population. Drink it up. Its your's. OWN IT!
Before they could put chains around your wrists, you'd need to allow them to put chains around your heart.
Don't allow it. Steel yourself and stay true
VooDoo6Actual
07-18-12, 08:11
And Obama was convinced to keep neocons on his cabinet...
I tire of the non-thinking members of both positions who put party above the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
+1
Yes.
Exactly what has happened. Most of the American public are clueless regarding the internal cabinet & Foreign Policy members are the same or of the same ilk & following the original 5-7 country plan, World Oil & resources choke points strategy, with a deliberate financial contraction etc. The players internally only the public puppets (front men) have changed etc.
There are hard core Neo-Cons on board that are following same US foreign policy & have been for some time. Complete oxymoron to campaign promises & platforms Obozo ran on. Indicating that once he got "READ IN" to the real agenda he has no choice as the Puppet masters are clearly running the show. The lies are so patently obvious it's the most plausible explanation.
Regardless of Romney or Obozo it's going to be a austere, transitional, frustrating ideologically for many, lean, culturally trying period etc.
Thinking traditional 2 party system is obselete & the Puppet Masters have made that abundantly clear. Not sure why so many Americans are struggling to comprehend that. The paradigm has been shifted for a reason. Change & CONTROL.
The fact that Pawlenty is bringing up the rear on the Drudge poll speaks volumes. Nobody knows who he is or cares. People want someone like Rubio, Rice, or Jindal. If they push another old white boring person alongside Romney, they're done. They're purposely trying to lose.
It has seemed like that to me for the past decade or so. I keep hoping for someone who will put an end to this BS and kick the Soros flunkies out of power but it never happens.
"My guy"? Both the neocons and liberals would find intolerable as he/she would enforce the Constitution and respect the Bill of Rights...
If you voted for Obama, then yes your guy. If not you lost me. I was referring to the whining of the left and the fact that they refuse to take any responsibility for their own actions.
That article sucks. It doesn't have anything new to say, and doesn't go into depth on anything either.
Thanks anyways, for sharing it at least
http://times247.com/articles/arpaio-calls-congress-to-move-on-obama-eligibility.mobile
No, you mentioned Bush.
I think Powell was the best of that sorry bunch.
And Obama was convinced to keep neocons on his cabinet...
His admin has been a disappointment in several areas as well.
There has been no direct confrontation with Russia. Yet. So I applaud that. But there is always tomorrow...
I tire of the non-thinking members of both positions who put party above the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Originally Posted by usmcvet
The fact that Cheeney and Rumsfield hate Rice should do a bit to quiet the Bush stigma.
You'd think that, but those hysterical libtards couldn't give two shits. Hell, they're still blaming bush for crap that's happening now! :mad:
Mentioning the Bush name does not equal me talking about him. I was referring to what the libs would think of CR, which is true. As for Powell, he's no better than the rest. He revealed himself as a RINO during the 08' elections.
It's semantics anyway. We're arguing about which side of a crap sandwich tastes worse. :mad:
Funny how the Drudge poll shows Rubio leading while the official Fox News poll shows Rice leading by a big margin.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/18/fox-news-poll-voters-pick-condi-rice-as-romney-running-mate/
If you voted for Obama, then yes your guy. If not you lost me. I was referring to the whining of the left and the fact that they refuse to take any responsibility for their own actions.
The Right does the exact same thing, brother.
Neither "side" truly respects our founding documents and ideals. It's all party before lawful legislation.
We got what we as a nation deserve: "right" and "left". They are "opposames", anyway...
The Right does the exact same thing, brother.
Neither "side" truly respects our founding documents and ideals. It's all party before lawful legislation.
We got what we as a nation deserve: "right" and "left". They are "opposames", anyway...
I agree it is a freaking mess and frustrating.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.