What would it take to change your mind?

[Sublimating]

Nearly a decade of conservative leadership in the White House and we are near a recession, the dollar is weaker than it's been in ten years, we are stuck in Iraq in what many say is a civil war, we are spending billions of dollars per week on an undeclared war. The housing industry is in turmoil, gas prices are up to nearly 4 dollars per gallon the country's deficit has grown larger, we are bailing out banks and sending people money to spend to boost a failing economy not to mention Bush has lost all sight of the fiscal restraint traditionally associated with conservative leadership. . Only in politics could this kind of backwards leadership be spun to resemble anything even remotely akin to success. If McCain is elected president and after four years things are still as horrible and bleak as they are now would conservative voters vote for a democratic president? If McCains presidency lasted two terms and the economy was in full recession at the end of his second term and the laundry list of problems had gotten worse would conservative vote for a democratic president? What would it take to change the minds of conservative voters?

[Elrathin]

In a weird way I am actually kinda hoping that McCain does get the presidency so a Republican has to try (and most likely fail) to clean up another Republican's mess.

Cause if a Dem does become president all we will here from the right is that they aren't doing a good job. Well when you're given shit to work with, you aren't going to make a Roasted Turkey out of it that's for sure.

[Osborn F. Enready]

The last 8 years of Bush, in NO WAY RESEMBLE CONSERVATIVISM, free market concept as designed in this nation, or reflect a respect of individual rights OR the CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS or LIMITATIONS imposed on government.

MCCAIN is in no way a CONSERVATIVE in the classic sense of the term.

The last 8 years have been a neocon wet-dream, and McCain is the next neocon in line to further that agenda.

By the same token, Hillary and Obama are not LIBERALS. They are socialists, or some may say communists. They have little to nothing in common with liberals in the classic sense of the term.

Both parties candidates, are puppets to the bi-partisan agenda of global unification government, the erasure and permanent ban of individual and national sovereignty, and the piecemeal destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Obama and Clinton are both authoritarian based wealth redistributionists.
McCain is an authoritarian based corporate mercantilist.

To deny the above is to deny the obvious facts of ALL of their voting records over their history of service, or to selectively disregard that which is uncomfortable.

[Go Fish]

If you could make 9/11 and it's global financial impact "unhappen", along with hurricane Katrina, hurricane Rita, the widlfires, Enron, Tyco, the prosecution of 2 major military operations, thousands of less-visible but equally important anti-terrorism operations, and the phony valuation of the Euro, and we were STILL in a recession, I'd say that you had the average democrat presidency.
President Bush has done a magnificent job.

[Elrathin]

President Bush has failed. And so has conservatism.

[bishop]

The last 8 years of Bush, in NO WAY RESEMBLE CONSERVATIVISM, free market concept as designed in this nation, or reflect a respect of individual rights OR the CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS or LIMITATIONS imposed on government.

ain't that the truth. i can't think of anything that the "conservatives" have done over the past 8 years that was remotely conservative.

conservatives have broken ranks and supported paul's candidacy, although the majority supports the establishment candidates. it's no different than directionless democrats who continually support their corrupt establishment candidates.

a more appropriate question in the OP would've been "what would it take for voters to vote against the washington establishment?".

[Go Fish]

Bush has only failed in areas where he should have acted more conservatively. For some unfathomable reason, he repeatedly seemed to think that concessions and overtures to the liberals would somehow be met with reciprocity. Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold certainly come to mind, as do all the flip-floppers who voted for Operation Iraqi Freedom and then spun on the jackboots and called him a war criminal.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Go Fish said:
Bush has only failed in areas where he should have acted more conservatively. For some unfathomable reason, he repeatedly seemed to think that concessions and overtures to the liberals would somehow be met with reciprocity.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

That is absolute nonsense, and I am betting unsupportable with fact.

Go Fish said:
Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold certainly come to mind, as do all the flip-floppers who voted for Operation Iraqi Freedom and then spun on the jackboots and called him a war criminal.

Never mind that BUSH and his ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION put forth the evidence, controlled the evidence, and used sworn testimony to validate the evidence for the war, YET DENIES it was incorrect, wasn't factual, and in many cases was presented in a way that DISGUISED the truth.

Absurd.

The reason Bush is not a conservative today, is the same reason he wasn't when he was voted in. He pays lip service to conservative values, votes along the lines of fundamentalist christian values (part of his extremist base) even when those values contradict his sworn oath and obligations, and his views ACTIONS in almost NO way resemble the actions of a rights protecting, individual liberty protecting, economic liberty protecting conservative.

He ran on one platform, and once in office reversed his entire platform via his actions.

[nevadamedic]

If you could make 9/11 and it's global financial impact "unhappen", along with hurricane Katrina, hurricane Rita, the widlfires, Enron, Tyco, the prosecution of 2 major military operations, thousands of less-visible but equally important anti-terrorism operations, and the phony valuation of the Euro, and we were STILL in a recession, I'd say that you had the average democrat presidency.
President Bush has done a magnificent job.


Not to mention a Democratic House and Senate who are spending like they are Donald Trump.

[bishop]

Bush has only failed in areas where he should have acted more conservatively.

that would mean that he's failed in all areas, since he hasn't been conservative whatsoever.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

If you could make 9/11 and it's global financial impact "unhappen", along with hurricane Katrina, hurricane Rita, the widlfires, Enron, Tyco, the prosecution of 2 major military operations, thousands of less-visible but equally important anti-terrorism operations, and the phony valuation of the Euro, and we were STILL in a recession, I'd say that you had the average democrat presidency.
President Bush has done a magnificent job.


If you believe has done a "magnificent job" you have seveir problems!!!

Remeber Bush charry picked intel so he could invade Iraq, he also
ignored intel that porved him wrong! And as we went into Iraq we
never found those WMD, thus proving Bush wrong !
At a price of >$1,000,000,000,000.00 !!!!
That was ~ 1/8th of the entier US debt up to this point in history!!

And at the end of the day Bush's record will stand for itself and your
Spin will do nothing ! The Truth is the Truth deal with it !

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Bush has only failed in areas where he should have acted more conservatively. For some unfathomable reason, he repeatedly seemed to think that concessions and overtures to the liberals would somehow be met with reciprocity. Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold certainly come to mind, as do all the flip-floppers who voted for Operation Iraqi Freedom and then spun on the jackboots and called him a war criminal.


Looks like you'er flip-flopping on Bush !?!?

President Bush has done a magnificent job.

So tell me what part of "A Magnifient job." does "FAILER" fit in ?

Bush has not concieded to Libs he is only filling to pockets of his
friends in business !

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Nearly a decade of conservative leadership in the White House and we are near a recession, the dollar is weaker than it's been in ten years, we are stuck in Iraq in what many say is a civil war, we are spending billions of dollars per week on an undeclared war. The housing industry is in turmoil, gas prices are up to nearly 4 dollars per gallon the country's deficit has grown larger, we are bailing out banks and sending people money to spend to boost a failing economy not to mention Bush has lost all sight of the fiscal restraint traditionally associated with conservative leadership. . Only in politics could this kind of backwards leadership be spun to resemble anything even remotely akin to success. If McCain is elected president and after four years things are still as horrible and bleak as they are now would conservative voters vote for a democratic president? If McCains presidency lasted two terms and the economy was in full recession at the end of his second term and the laundry list of problems had gotten worse would conservative vote for a democratic president? What would it take to change the minds of conservative voters?


One thing you are missing is that, it is because the DEMS are so
screwed up that a retard like Bush could win the Presidency !!!!!!
........................"TWICE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Both parties are corrput and are destroing America !!!!!
Picking one over the other will not make America get better and
it hasn't thus far !!!!!!

Picking the Lesser of two Evils still leaves you with Evil !!!!!!!

So let me ask you "What Will it Take" for you not to support a
know corrupt party ????

[4Reaganomics]

I will vote against socialism every single time.

Even if it is for someone who once supported amnesty, illegal-immigration, or a restriction on free speech.

The lesser of two evils is still evil No-More, but its not socialism. That is something I am going to fight my entire life against. If it means having someone like McCain then so be it.

If I could get a 30 million man army together to rebel and put a Thomas Jefferson in office I would, but it is pretty unrealistic.

[Truth_and_Power]

If you could make 9/11 and it's global financial impact "unhappen", along with hurricane Katrina, hurricane Rita, the widlfires, Enron, Tyco, the prosecution of 2 major military operations, thousands of less-visible but equally important anti-terrorism operations, and the phony valuation of the Euro, and we were STILL in a recession, I'd say that you had the average democrat presidency.
President Bush has done a magnificent job.


9/11 is not causing this recession.
The second military operation was entirely optional, and the format of the first was optional.

This recession is a bubble and burst, just like the dot com crash was. That is not caused by bad factors, it's caused by rampant speculation. The same thing which, incidentally, caused the great depression. There are all, very much, caused by our financial system. The fed was created after the g.d. so I need more evidence as to how the fed is the problem.

What is the solution?

[Osborn F. Enready]

4Reganomics said:
I will vote against socialism every single time.

Even if it is for someone who once supported amnesty, illegal-immigration, or a restriction on free speech.

The lesser of two evils is still evil No-More, but its not socialism. That is something I am going to fight my entire life against. If it means having someone like McCain then so be it.

If I could get a 30 million man army together to rebel and put a Thomas Jefferson in office I would, but it is pretty unrealistic.

VOTE THIRD PARTY.

The first step to avoid a violent revolution is to boot ALL INCUMBENTS OUT, and never vote for that party again until it totally breaks up and reforms or dies. The trend of both parties to create laws and support laws the infringe, or directly contradict individual rights is long and well worn in the congressional records.

[brien]

I agree with Bishop & Osborn 150%. I can only add the following.

The only aspect of government that is important is the truth. Forget labels like Conservative and Liberal because if GWB took down the Conservatives, LBJ, and every Dem President since him, has proved Liberal policies are a failure as well. So we are left with Party names that mean absolutely nothing anymore. People really need to get past these terms that have almost become perjoratives in the political lexicon.

It is concepts that require debate and all I see being discussed in the current election is race, deception, and negative campaigning. There are parts of the Democratic Party that should split away and reform under the name of Socialists. There is already a Libertarian reform splitting away from the Republican party that is based on Liberty, the Free Market, and the Constitution. At least if we had these type of Party names we could identify and understand what they stand for in their ideology. We need to debate ideas, programs and ideologies, not race, deception and lies.

[potter]

What would it take to change the minds of conservative voters?


Cash always works with conservatives.....

[potter]

I will vote against socialism every single time.

Even if it is for someone who once supported amnesty, illegal-immigration, or a restriction on free speech.

The lesser of two evils is still evil No-More, but its not socialism. That is something I am going to fight my entire life against. If it means having someone like McCain then so be it.

If I could get a 30 million man army together to rebel and put a Thomas Jefferson in office I would, but it is pretty unrealistic.



I really don't have a problem with socialism or communism if they are managed right. I think if folks want to live under those systems more power to them. I think whats not so right is when a system is forced on whole populations for the benefit of a very few.....

[potter]

I agree with Bishop & Osborn 150%. I can only add the following.

The only aspect of government that is important is the truth. Forget labels like Conservative and Liberal because if GWB took down the Conservatives, LBJ, and every Dem President since him, has proved Liberal policies are a failure as well. So we are left with Party names that mean absolutely nothing anymore. People really need to get past these terms that have almost become perjoratives in the political lexicon.

It is concepts that require debate and all I see being discussed in the current election is race, deception, and negative campaigning. There are parts of the Democratic Party that should split away and reform under the name of Socialists. There is already a Libertarian reform splitting away from the Republican party that is based on Liberty, the Free Market, and the Constitution. At least if we had these type of Party names we could identify and understand what they stand for in their ideology. We need to debate ideas, programs and ideologies, not race, deception and lies.



If you don't quit making sense we'll have to ban you....:ecstatic::thumbsup:

[Wndrtch]

In a weird way I am actually kinda hoping that McCain does get the presidency so a Republican has to try (and most likely fail) to clean up another Republican's mess.

911 was a Democratic mess to begin with. It started with Boy Clinton instituting policies that prevented our Intel community from talking with local law-enforcement officials, about potential terrorist activity. He also treated the Khobar tower bombing, the USS Cole, the first World trade center bombing, etc...as simple criminal activity, instead of treating as a real threat by extremeist that want to commit large-scale human death. And of course, the icing is in the fact that Boy Clinton was offered OBL, three time, and never grabbed him, because we "didn't have controlling legal authority to hold him".

The reality is, that Bush has been cleaning-up after the "Clinton Legacy", ever since he took office. (I wonder if they got the stains out of the carpets yet?)

Cause if a Dem does become president all we will here from the right is that they aren't doing a good job. Well when you're given sh1t to work with, you aren't going to make a Roasted Turkey out of it that's for sure.

How is that any different from what the Dems are doing now?

Last week, USA Today reported that since June 2003, the U.S. military in Iraq has kept a count of insurgents killed, injured and detained. Those figures were later released by the military to Stars and Stripes.

Through August 2007, those figures show, 18,832 suspected insurgents had been reported killed, 5,196 injured and 119,752 arrested by U.S. and coalition forces.

That totals 143,780 terrorist taken out of commision, yet the Lib-tards report this as "failure".

Go figure.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Potter said:
I really don't have a problem with socialism or communism if they are managed right.

I would love to hear what "managed right" would mean to you, since it is inherantly flawed, it flies in the face of liberty of the individual, and it CAN'T work without abject use of force.

As far as OTHER nations living under socialism or communism, that is THEIR choice, but I won't tolerate it in this nation, nor will I live under a system worse than this one is now, which it is becoming worse daily.

Americans patience are running out.....

Potter said:
I think if folks want to live under those systems more power to them. I think whats not so right is when a system is forced on whole populations for the benefit of a very few.....

Well, could you contradict yourself anymore?

Communism IS CLEARLY forced on the people, and socialism is simply a prelude to communism, much like democracy is a DEVOLUTION of a republic.(the stage we are in now)

If the US public decides it wants to split the union, with one portion respecting individual rights, and the other going communist, that is fine with me. (there are obviously a lot of them) I will not however, surrender to or settle for anything less being recognized than individual rights as defined in the BOR, including those rights not listed.

[brien]

If you don't quit making sense we'll have to ban you.... :madlaugh:

I should just go ahead an ban myself....:lmao:

[brien]

I would love to hear what "managed right" would mean to you, since it is inherantly flawed, it flies in the face of liberty of the individual, and it CAN'T work without abject use of force.

Os, Don't you think some religious orders live under Communism? Buddhist Monks, Cloistered Nuns? Trappist Priests?

Now that said, they have the thread of religion that weaves the fabric of their devotion to each other and their common cause; ie their dogma of faith in God. But there is no individual Liberty in any Communism. I have never seen individual Liberty in the political spectrum where Communism is the main aspect of the social law. In fact, most political Communism usually bans the practice of religion and undermines Liberty in every law. Collectivism is the antithises of individual Liberty and usually leaves no room for the private practice of religion.

[Truth_and_Power]

In a weird way I am actually kinda hoping that McCain does get the presidency so a Republican has to try (and most likely fail) to clean up another Republican's mess.

911 was a Democratic mess to begin with. It started with Boy Clinton instituting policies that prevented our Intel community from talking with local law-enforcement officials, about potential terrorist activity. He also treated the Khobar tower bombing, the USS Cole, the first World trade center bombing, etc...as simple criminal activity, instead of treating as a real threat by extremeist that want to commit large-scale human death. And of course, the icing is in the fact that Boy Clinton was offered OBL, three time, and never grabbed him, because we "didn't have controlling legal authority to hold him".

The reality is, that Bush has been cleaning-up after the "Clinton Legacy", ever since he took office. (I wonder if they got the stains out of the carpets yet?)

Cause if a Dem does become president all we will here from the right is that they aren't doing a good job. Well when you're given sh1t to work with, you aren't going to make a Roasted Turkey out of it that's for sure.

How is that any different from what the Dems are doing now?

Last week, USA Today reported that since June 2003, the U.S. military in Iraq has kept a count of insurgents killed, injured and detained. Those figures were later released by the military to Stars and Stripes.

Through August 2007, those figures show, 18,832 suspected insurgents had been reported killed, 5,196 injured and 119,752 arrested by U.S. and coalition forces.

That totals 143,780 terrorist taken out of commision, yet the Lib-tards report this as "failure".

Go figure.


Insurgents are domestic in nature, they are not terrorists that threaten the U.S.. They are an example of what happens when you try to govern another country. This whole mess started long before Bubba.. he was probably in elementary school.

[Keith Hamburger]

The fed was created after the g.d. so I need more evidence as to how the fed is the problem.

Umm. No. Please check your history on this one.

Keith

[Sublimating]

There are no, none, not one republican that identifies themselves as a "Bush Republican" there are plenty of "Regan Republicans" but as conservatives go, people are trying to disassociate themselves with the last eight years of conservative leadership so...the idea that Bush has done a good job, or that he will be looked upon as a good president I'm not buying it and if you look at his approval rating neither is America. There's always something or someone to blame. What would it take?

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

I will vote against socialism every single time.

Even if it is for someone who once supported amnesty, illegal-immigration, or a restriction on free speech.

The lesser of two evils is still evil No-More, but its not socialism. That is something I am going to fight my entire life against. If it means having someone like McCain then so be it.

If I could get a 30 million man army together to rebel and put a Thomas Jefferson in office I would, but it is pretty unrealistic.


Your Phantom Nemesis of "Socialism" does not fly !

When you say "Socialism" I take it that you mean ~"civil socialism".
But what about ~"corporate socialism" ? That's what the REPS
support !

What do you call giving the oils companies Billions of dollars when
they have record profits?
What about bailing out investor on wall street because they
Knowingly made dangerous business decisions!

Nader refers to this as "Corporate personhood" .
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
I'm sure you have never even phantom the idea because the REPS,
DEMS or new media (Corporate entities) never discuss such things.
So you can't on the spot regurgitate "their" answer as you own, on
the matter.

[bishop]

If I could get a 30 million man army together to rebel and put a Thomas Jefferson in office I would, but it is pretty unrealistic.

or you could've just supported ron paul's candidacy..

[Elrathin]

Or you could've just supported ron paul's candidacy..


I know many that would have supported him as a third party candidate, but he was more worried about pissing off Republicans and keeping his job than he was about Changing America for the good.

Noone stopped Ron Paul from continuing as a third party candidate but Ron Paul.

[bishop]

if he was a 3rd party candidate, the media would've given him even less attention - if that's even possible..

[Keith Hamburger]

I know many that would have supported him as a third party candidate, but he was more worried about pissing off Republicans and keeping his job than he was about Changing America for the good.

Noone stopped Ron Paul from continuing as a third party candidate but Ron Paul.

There are a lot of factors involved in Ron Paul's decision to not run third party. Not the least of which involved the questions that would have come up in regards to the legitimacy of his holding of his congressional seat had he removed himself from the Republican party in order to run as an independent or a third party candidate for the presidency.

In 1988, Paul ran as a Libertarian for the presidency. He had far less impact in that race than he did as an "also ran" in his candidacy as a Republican. This is not to demean the LP, I have been registered as such since 1986 and have served as State Chair and run for office under that banner four times. However, Paul's decision to run as a Republican was obviously the correct one for him. And, his retaining his seat in congress is obviously important as well.

If all of the Republicans, and independents, such as yourself, had supported his candidacy under the Republican banner like they claim they would if he would run third party or independent, this question wouldn't even come up. However, it is obvious that Republicans are more concerned with the team name and "electability" than they are with principles or anything else. It's much like the party mechanism of the communists in Soviet Russia, the team is everything, nothing else matters.

Keith

[nevadamedic]

If I could get a 30 million man army together to rebel and put a Thomas Jefferson in office I would, but it is pretty unrealistic.

or you could've just supported ron paul's candidacy..


Ron "Looney" Paul is an idiot who needs to be declared legally insane.

[4Reaganomics]

Paul is a brilliant man. Honestly, I don't vote until PA and I can't state wheter or whether not I would have voted for him if this thing was not clinched yet.

But now, it is Hillary I will be voting for in the Democratic party.

[apdst]

Nearly a decade of conservative leadership in the White House and we are near a recession,

How do you explain the recession of 2001? Was that one Bush's fault, too?

[bishop]

Ron "Looney" Paul is an idiot who needs to be declared legally insane.


thanks for your enlightening contribution.

[Muser]

This recession is a bubble and burst, just like the dot com crash was.

Um...no. The stock market shook off the excesses of the late-90s technology boom with the investors bearing the brunt of that downturn. Americans kept spending, thanks to an encouraging government and its tax rebates. No one doubted the stability of the financial system, there was no credit crisis, and the housing boom hadn't yet begun. And that's just for starters.

That is not caused by bad factors:madlaugh: <wiping tears> Tell another one! <holding sides> There are these things called subprime mortgages (which the Fed encouraged), you see, which in turn led to deriviatives, CDOs, etc. Might I suggest reading this rather amusing primer on subprime basics (2MB Powerpoint):

Subprime basics (http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1162111_qw4kk/SubprimeBasics.pps)

Bear Stearns is only the beginning, and I can't say I'm particularly pleased with the way the Fed is handling this quite unsurprising meltdown of BS:

Why is Bear Stearns Trading at $6 Instead of $2? (http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc080324.htm)

Bear Stearns is trading at $6 instead of $2 because unelected bureaucrats went beyond their legal mandates, delivered a windfall to a single private company at public expense, entered agreements that violate the the public trust, and created a situation where even if the bureaucratic malfeasance stands, the shareholders of Bear Stearns will either reject the deal or be deprived of their right to determine the fate of the company they own. Very simply, Bear Stearns is still in play. Still, when all is said and done, my own impression is that the ultimate value of the stock will not be $2, but exactly zero.

In effect, the Federal Reserve decided last week to overstep its legal boundaries going beyond providing liquidity to the banking system and attempting to ensure the solvency of a non-bank entity. Specifically, the Fed agreed to provide a $30 billion non-recourse loan to J.P. Morgan, secured only by the worst tranche of Bear Stearns' mortgage debt. But the bank J.P. Morgan was in no financial trouble. Instead, it was effectively offered a subsidy by the Fed at public expense. Rick Santelli of CNBC is exactly right. If this is how the U.S. government is going to operate in a democratic, free-market society, we might as well put a hammer and sickle on the flag.
...it's caused by rampant speculation. The same thing which, incidentally, caused the great depression. There are all, very much, caused by our financial system. The fed was created after the g.d.

The Federal Reserve Act was enacted in 1913, well before the Great Depression, with most economists agreeing the Fed played a role in its severity (if not deliberately orchestrating it, but I leave that to the more cynically-minded).

so I need more evidence as to how the fed is the problem.

<looks at watch> How long ya got? Suggest a bit of reading up on Greenspan and Volcker and the differences between; else, Google is your friend.

What is the solution?

Get rid of the unConstitutional, privately-held, for-profit Federal Reserve and put the US government back in control of its own currency; if the government was using constitutional coin they couldn’t print endlessly - they would have to raise the money constitutionally, which would require accountability from the People. I'm not entirely convinced we can go back to a literal gold standard at this point, but unquestionably a secretive cabal of international elite bankers that is in no way accountable to the citizens of this nation is more assuredly NOT the solution.

"Ron Paul is still making sense (http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2008/03/ron-paul-is-still-making-sense.html)" indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBympCQcyzY

Again, we're not in just another one of your average, Fed-created boom/bust cycles here:

US Banking System Teetering on the Brink of Collapse (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article3570.html)
US Oblivious to Day of Reckoning (http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=2940)
America's Fiscal Future (http://www.gao.gov/media/video/fiscal/windows/amfiscal.wmv)

Getting back to the OP - it doesn't matter which of the candidates takes office (save Paul), we're all pretty much fscked; those choosing to vote are voting only for whether it'll a) be up the backside, b) include ankle handles, and/or c) not include lube. With John "I don't know much about economics" McCain enlisting Phil Gramm as an advisor, looks like you'll get all 3.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Great post Muser!

Ron Paul was, and still is the only one ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUES THAT MATTER. That is why he is not in the running.... a lot of Americans don't UNDERSTAND the trouble they are in.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

If I could get a 30 million man army together to rebel and put a Thomas Jefferson in office I would, but it is pretty unrealistic.

or you could've just supported ron paul's candidacy..


Ron "Looney" Paul is an idiot who needs to be declared legally insane.


Have you ever tried to get in to medical school ?... Dr. Paul did!
(I guess that means he can't be an idiot...)

If wanting to get corrupt US politicians to use and uphold the
constitution is "insane" then you might as well put all our founding
fathers in that group with Ron Paul..........

Oh wait! I get it, you're one of those special people that think Bush
is doing a good job and is "Smart" Too ......
It make sense now! You attack Paul by calling names but don't
give any supporting evidence to back up your claim......
That's a brilliant tactic !!!!

[4Reaganomics]

Nobody is questioning how brilliant Paul is. Some of us question how reasonable some of his policies are.

I personally love his economic policy, but believe that we cannot go back to the gold standard at this point and just abolishing the Fed tomorrow wouldn't be a bright idea at all.

I also believe that he is weak on defense and doesn't see that there are radical islamists that are waging war against us. I don't think he sees that Iran is a threat as well, and that we need to have a location in the world to defend ourselves successfully from their terror regime.

I love his support complete privatization of social security, I love his support for getting the inefficent government out of our schools, and I love his initiative to turn many things back into the free market.

I probably agree with him more than any other candidate. However, the big However, part of me thinks that this is all just words. With the legislative process, i'd be surprised if Paul could get 20% of the things he talks about done.

[potter]

If all of the Republicans, and independents, such as yourself, had supported his candidacy under the Republican banner like they claim they would if he would run third party or independent, this question wouldn't even come up. However, it is obvious that Republicans are more concerned with the team name and "electability" than they are with principles or anything else. It's much like the party mechanism of the communists in Soviet Russia, the team is everything, nothing else matters.

Keith


Agreed

[Keith Hamburger]

I probably agree with him more than any other candidate. However, the big However, part of me thinks that this is all just words. With the legislative process, i'd be surprised if Paul could get 20% of the things he talks about done.

If he were to accomplish 20% of what he talks about, we would be 1000% ahead of anything talked about by anything else.

What's your next excuse?

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Agreed

Thank you for replying to my post. I get really tired of posting what I consider to be very astute observations and having everyone else ignore them.

Perhaps that's the issue. It's far easier for people to respond to posts that make sense and to have them go off on a tangent with posts that have no real relevance.

It makes sense, but it's quite frustrating.

Keith

[Osborn F. Enready]

Keith, I never ignore, only nod my head in agreement 97.5% of the time.

I hate to only post "atta boy" posts, and I think its against the rules. ;)

AS usual, I do agree however.

[preservanation]

All this boot licking makes me sick.
Get in line at the Kiwi Kiosk!
Pitewee!
:D

[Keith Hamburger]

All this boot licking makes me sick.
Get in line at the Kiwi Kiosk!
Pitewee!
:D


So, do you have anything to contribute? I don't think that this post has any actual relevance to the topic at hand.

Keith

[preservanation]

I Post: #44 | RE: What would it take to change your mind?

Keith, I never ignore, only nod my head in agreement 97.5% of the time.

I hate to only post "atta boy" posts, and I think its against the rules.

AS usual, I do agree however.
Thank you for replying to my post. I get really tired of posting what I consider to be very astute observations and having everyone else ignore them.

Perhaps that's the issue. It's far easier for people to respond to posts that make sense and to have them go off on a tangent with posts that have no real relevance.

It makes sense, but it's quite frustrating.
Exactly