Election of 2012....Who ya got?

Page 26 of 41 First ... 2425262728 ... Last

  1. Did you hear the rumors about the Romney/Paul ticket?


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Clickster
    I love Rick Santorum. He has been my guy since this all started.

    Go ahead and judge me. haha!
    Consider yourself judged.

    He is scary
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    Did you hear the rumors about the Romney/Paul ticket?
    I heard it somewhere, if that was true Paul is done in my books forever. Unless Paul plans to pull a Lyndon Johnson to gain power, hmmm?
    Liked this post:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gutterpump, Matthandyo, Dma378, Misfit and 10 others

  4. Quote Originally Posted by ax1

    I heard it somewhere, if that was true Paul is done in my books forever. Unless Paul plans to pull a Lyndon Johnson to gain power, hmmm?
    Prediction?

  5. Quote Originally Posted by AE14

    Prediction?
    We're ****ed? That's my only prediction, and it basically doesn't matter who gets elected.

    The only way a Paul Romney ticket would work is with Paul as president. Because the veto power needs to be in the hands of someone who would use out to curb excesses
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    Prediction?
    Not at all, I just dont see that happening or Ron even considering it (Romney either or VP.) Id like to hear it out of his mouth or his own website.
    Liked this post:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gutterpump, Matthandyo, Dma378, Misfit and 10 others

  7. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    Consider yourself judged.

    He is scary
    I feel the same about Ron Paul's foreign policy.....
    I'm Back...

  8. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    We're ****ed? That's my only prediction, and it basically doesn't matter who gets elected.

    The only way a Paul Romney ticket would work is with Paul as president. Because the veto power needs to be in the hands of someone who would use out to curb excesses
    I dont actually believe he would. I see him as no different as than anyone else tbh. He was supposedly above the fray, yet he takes out some of the worst attack ads out there. He is just another politician, or "insider".

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Not at all, I just dont see that happening or Ron even considering it (Romney either or VP.) Id like to hear it out of his mouth or his own website.
    I wonder how many Paul supporters would go bananas over it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Clickster View Post
    I feel the same about Ron Paul's foreign policy.....
    I agree here, but Santorum with his "Socially conservative" agenda is completely unelectable. There are no moderates out there who would even consider something so extreme. His decision making process is based primarily on "god", which is downright frightening when you look at the history of his religion.

    I live in Pa, there is a reason he got destroyed in his senate reelection bid

  9. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    I dont actually believe he would. I see him as no different as than anyone else tbh. He was supposedly above the fray, yet he takes out some of the worst attack ads out there. He is just another politician, or "insider".
    whats wrong with attack ads that are accurate? I fail to see the issue. Letting the public know the hypocrisy of "I want no child left behind, but I voted for it" and "I believe abortion shouldn't be legal but I voted to fund planned parenthood" work fine for me.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL

    whats wrong with attack ads that are accurate? I fail to see the issue. Letting the public know the hypocrisy of "I want no child left behind, but I voted for it" and "I believe abortion shouldn't be legal but I voted to fund planned parenthood" work fine for me.
    You know the planned parenthood thing is a crock. It was attached to another bill, which was he primary reason he voted for it. Don't start becoming a Paulite E, that's a scary group. Almost as scary as Santorum.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by AE14
    I dont actually believe he would. I see him as no different as than anyone else tbh. He was supposedly above the fray, yet he takes out some of the worst attack ads out there. He is just another politician, or "insider".

    I wonder how many Paul supporters would go bananas over it?

    I agree here, but Santorum with his "Socially conservative" agenda is completely unelectable. There are no moderates out there who would even consider something so extreme. His decision making process is based primarily on "god", which is downright frightening when you look at the history of his religion.

    I live in Pa, there is a reason he got destroyed in his senate reelection bid
    ^^ Amen. I never voted for him here and I sure won't on a national ticket. He would base every decision on "his" religious beliefs alone. We can't call everyone in the middle east religious extremist if we form our government based in the same concept. That dude scares me except that he's totally unelectable.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    You know the planned parenthood thing is a crock. It was attached to another bill, which was he primary reason he voted for it. Don't start becoming a Paulite E, that's a scary group. Almost as scary as Santorum.
    Cant comment of this specific story, but as with most bills, there always underlying laws that have nothing to do with the bill (such as college loans in the health care bill), and these days bill's are so long most (if not all) that vote yes didint even read it so I see how things like that can happen.
    Liked this post:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gutterpump, Matthandyo, Dma378, Misfit and 10 others

  13. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    You know the planned parenthood thing is a crock. It was attached to another bill, which was he primary reason he voted for it. Don't start becoming a Paulite E, that's a scary group. Almost as scary as Santorum.
    its not a crock. How can you say you are against the death penalty and then vote yes on a bill that includes the death penalty in it? Sure it was attached to another bill, and it was another bill that was totally unrelated and had nothing to do with planned parenthood. It was attached to buy the votes of liberals to guarantee passage of the main bill. That is an enormous part of the problem with how congress operates. The cornhusker kickback for the vote for Obamacare, etc. They should vote no whenever a bill contains parts they disagree with.

    And those 3,000 page bills that have 150 amendments that are unrelated to the main point of the bill have to stop. Its a part of what makes our political system so non-transparent. Guessing that from your perspective, it is totally acceptable to pass a bill that disbands all teachers unions if its part of a bill to fund social security then? The bills should go through as separate entities, not trying to make them into a huge conglomeration that effectively is bribery, plus giving them the excuse for having voted for things they don't agree with "well, I had to, it was attached to the defense appropriations bill". Thats the part that is a crock, using expediency as an excuse for doing something you don't believe in.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL

    its not a crock. How can you say you are against the death penalty and then vote yes on a bill that includes the death penalty in it? Sure it was attached to another bill, and it was another bill that was totally unrelated and had nothing to do with planned parenthood. It was attached to buy the votes of liberals to guarantee passage of the main bill. That is an enormous part of the problem with how congress operates. The cornhusker kickback for the vote for Obamacare, etc. They should vote no whenever a bill contains parts they disagree with.

    And those 3,000 page bills that have 150 amendments that are unrelated to the main point of the bill have to stop. Its a part of what makes our political system so non-transparent. Guessing that from your perspective, it is totally acceptable to pass a bill that disbands all teachers unions if its part of a bill to fund social security then? The bills should go through as separate entities, not trying to make them into a huge conglomeration that effectively is bribery, plus giving them the excuse for having voted for things they don't agree with "well, I had to, it was attached to the defense appropriations bill". Thats the part that is a crock, using expediency as an excuse for doing something you don't believe in.
    Not if they agree with the majority of the bill. Then you hold your nose and vote yes (old Ed Koch quote)

    Your thoughts on a teacher union bill is silly. (I am no longer in the teachers union btw). Of course they should be separate, but that was not the issue we are addressing. You gave a Paulite talking point about Santorum, which is a nonsensical statement, which you know.

    The fact is as much as Paul claims to be an outsider, he is not. 30+ years in Washington and a campaign like he has run is all the proof needed to show that.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    Not if they agree with the majority of the bill. Then you hold your nose and vote yes (old Ed Koch quote)

    Your thoughts on a teacher union bill is silly. (I am no longer in the teachers union btw). Of course they should be separate, but that was not the issue we are addressing. You gave a Paulite talking point about Santorum, which is a nonsensical statement, which you know.

    The fact is as much as Paul claims to be an outsider, he is not. 30+ years in Washington and a campaign like he has run is all the proof needed to show that.
    Is there anything in any of his ads that isn't true? Is there any evidence that Paul has done the "hold your nose and vote for it anyhow"? No, there isn't. In 30 years he has voted no every time any part of a bill was against his beliefs. So you can go ahead and believe that your own morality is negotiable and that you'll accept some evil for a greater good, but there is no reason the 2 have to be together other than political expediency.

    Sure the example of the teacher's union was extreme, but the practice of attaching bribes to other bills, and then everyone being expected to vote yes on it is extreme. Thats all those parts are, bribes to get an individual politician to vote yes for the overall package. If more politicians voted like Ron Paul did, the practice of post it noting a pile of unrelated amendments onto a bill just to buy passage would stop. Then each bill would be passed or fail to pass on its own merit. But instead, as with Santorum (and Gingrich in congress, and Romeny as governor) most politicians sign off on something they are against to get something they are for. Thats not compromise, thats hypocrisy.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Is there anything in any of his ads that isn't true? Is there any evidence that Paul has done the "hold your nose and vote for it anyhow"? No, there isn't. In 30 years he has voted no every time any part of a bill was against his beliefs. So you can go ahead and believe that your own morality is negotiable and that you'll accept some evil for a greater good, but there is no reason the 2 have to be together other than political expediency.

    Sure the example of the teacher's union was extreme, but the practice of attaching bribes to other bills, and then everyone being expected to vote yes on it is extreme. Thats all those parts are, bribes to get an individual politician to vote yes for the overall package. If more politicians voted like Ron Paul did, the practice of post it noting a pile of unrelated amendments onto a bill just to buy passage would stop. Then each bill would be passed or fail to pass on its own merit. But instead, as with Santorum (and Gingrich in congress, and Romeny as governor) most politicians sign off on something they are against to get something they are for. Thats not compromise, thats hypocrisy.
    your definition of compromise is skewed imo. In politics, as you well know, you many times need to give something to get something.

    Additionally, by your statement of truth, Paul is a racist.

    Again, lets not be a talking head for a candidate

  17. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    your definition of compromise is skewed imo. In politics, as you well know, you many times need to give something to get something.

    Additionally, by your statement of truth, Paul is a racist.

    Again, lets not be a talking head for a candidate
    Compromise these days is a little extreme though...

    Want health care? Here is health care lets force everyone to buy insurance since they dont have "health care" and in return we will build and army of 16,000 IRS agents to enforce it and also fund the Obama Civilian Task force that should be as powerful and funded as the military, there health care for you.

    Paul a racist? Dont tell me you read that newsletter from 89.
    Liked this post:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gutterpump, Matthandyo, Dma378, Misfit and 10 others

  18. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    your definition of compromise is skewed imo. In politics, as you well know, you many times need to give something to get something.

    Additionally, by your statement of truth, Paul is a racist.

    Again, lets not be a talking head for a candidate
    "in politics, as you well know" - I know this is the mockery our political system has become. That doesn't mean I have to like it or approve of it. For some douche like Santorum to claim to be Mr Morality but to still vote for things that violate his conscience is a total joke. Sure it is how politics has become, that doesn't mean its how politics should be.

    And no, by my definition Paul isn't a racist. A newsletter that has his name on it published some articles not written by him that were racist. He didn't write the articles, or have editiorial control over articles. But nice try.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Compromise these days is a little extreme though...

    Want health care? Here is health care lets force everyone to buy insurance since they dont have "health care" and in return we will build and army of 16,000 IRS agents to enforce it and also fund the Obama Civilian Task force that should be as powerful and funded as the military, there health care for you.

    Paul a racist? Dont tell me you read that newsletter from 89.
    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    "in politics, as you well know" - I know this is the mockery our political system has become. That doesn't mean I have to like it or approve of it. For some douche like Santorum to claim to be Mr Morality but to still vote for things that violate his conscience is a total joke. Sure it is how politics has become, that doesn't mean its how politics should be.

    And no, by my definition Paul isn't a racist. A newsletter that has his name on it published some articles not written by him that were racist. He didn't write the articles, or have editiorial control over articles. But nice try.
    To both, my post about the newsletters are in relation to E saying Santorum supports Planned Parenthood. Out of anyone of the 4, he is the least likely to support it. He voted for a piece of legislation where the financing was piggybacked on to it. I personally dont care if Paul is a racist or not, tbh. I will never vote for him regardless. I do find it interesting that Paul had no editorial control, when his name is on it

  20. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    To both, my post about the newsletters are in relation to E saying Santorum supports Planned Parenthood. Out of anyone of the 4, he is the least likely to support it. He voted for a piece of legislation where the financing was piggybacked on to it. I personally dont care if Paul is a racist or not, tbh. I will never vote for him regardless. I do find it interesting that Paul had no editorial control, when his name is on it
    No, I never said santorum supported it, I said he voted to fund it. Voting to fund something you are morally opposed to and that you feel is a violation of the human rights of an unborn child just because its attached to something else is still hypocritical. Its just part of why nobody trusts politicians. How can you stand in the public and say "even though I voted to fund these things, i'm against all of them" ? Its no wonder people don't trust politicans.

    Do you think Susan G Komen has editorial rights over everything published in her name? Of course not, she's dead. Do you think Bill Gates has editorial rights over everything done by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Of course not. He's not a newsletter editor, he has plenty of other things that keep him occupied. Same with many newsletters and other publications.

  21. Santorum
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  22. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post

    Do you think Susan G Komen has editorial rights over everything published in her name? Of course not, she's dead. Do you think Bill Gates has editorial rights over everything done by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Of course not. He's not a newsletter editor, he has plenty of other things that keep him occupied. Same with many newsletters and other publications.
    lets not compare the Paul "organization" to microsoft. Tad bit of a difference in terms of size.

    Also, I never understood all the hub bub about Paul. People calling him the modern day Jefferson, which is more of a negative imo. Jefferson did not truly follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution. So silly

  23. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    lets not compare the Paul "organization" to microsoft. Tad bit of a difference in terms of size.

    Also, I never understood all the hub bub about Paul. People calling him the modern day Jefferson, which is more of a negative imo. Jefferson did not truly follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution. So silly
    Its not about the size of the organization either. How much else does a political figure or obstetrician have going on in their lives that they can devote an additional x amount of time to being a newsletter editor on top?

    The main hubub about Paul is that he is actually a voice of "hope and change", unlike the rubber stamp politicians we have. We've tried it the way that Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes, and Obama wanted (and can go back further really for the last almost 100 years) and all we do is mire ourselves deeper.

    And in what way did Jefferson not follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution? btw this isn't argumentative, I'm interested as I've read a bit of what Jefferson wrote later on. He was one of the authors of the constitution, so i'd think he'd be one who had a fairly good understanding of how they got to the wording they did. Although I probably could stand to read more of Madison's writings. Certainly any diversions he took from a literal reading are far closer than a president who would craft Social Security, Medicare part D, the Patriot Act, the CRA or mandated health care.

  24. I am on my phone so I apologize I have to be brief.

    Paul's maintainence it less than say Gates. Easier for him to control.

    Jefferson applied the constitution when it suited him. Louisiana Purchase is the first that comes to mind. That is the epitome of a loose interpretation.

    The issues that precluded 1812 were all Jeffersons doing. Madison was stuck dealing with it. Madison is a great read E. one of my personal favorites.

  25. well, from what I remember, he was torn over whether or not to buy Louisiana. At the start he only wanted to buy New Orleans, to guarantee usage of the port for US trade + defensive needs.

    But I do need to read some of Madison's writings too. I'm going to poke around for ebooks.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL
    well, from what I remember, he was torn over whether or not to buy Louisiana. At the start he only wanted to buy New Orleans, to guarantee usage of the port for US trade + defensive needs.

    But I do need to read some of Madison's writings too. I'm going to poke around for ebooks.
    Agreed....however, the constitution has no provision for that sort of action. Many of his detractors at the time were killing him as a result.

    Madison always seems very pragmatic to me. Also, is the last sitting president to lead me into battle. He got crushed for 1812 (Jefferson's policies) and Monroe reaps the benefits in the era of good feeling as a result of Madison's leadership. He never gets the credit he deserves IMO

  27. Actually quite a lot of free ebooks on google books from Madison's writings. something nice to read on my flight to the Arnold Friday

  28. Quote Originally Posted by AE14 View Post
    I agree here, but Santorum with his "Socially conservative" agenda is completely unelectable. There are no moderates out there who would even consider something so extreme. His decision making process is based primarily on "god", which is downright frightening when you look at the history of his religion.

    I live in Pa, there is a reason he got destroyed in his senate reelection bid
    I am a Christian and I try to make 100% of my decisions based primarily on God. So, this obviously is playing part in my liking of Rick Santorum. I realize that my faith and my politics isn't usually of the popular opinion. It is just where I stand.

    I do like others in this race also and will support whoever gets the nod. As of now, Rick Santorum is my choice.
    I'm Back...

  29. Quote Originally Posted by Clickster View Post
    I am a Christian and I try to make 100% of my decisions based primarily on God. So, this obviously is playing part in my liking of Rick Santorum. I realize that my faith and my politics isn't usually of the popular opinion. It is just where I stand.

    I do like others in this race also and will support whoever gets the nod. As of now, Rick Santorum is my choice.
    Im not trying to come across as someone trying to pick apart religion, but I just want to ask you this...

    I can see how someone bases his decisions on his ethics and values that his god has taught him through teachings of the bible, but how does one actually talk to god and make a decision to going to war with another country or not?
    Liked this post:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gutterpump, Matthandyo, Dma378, Misfit and 10 others

  30. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Im not trying to come across as someone trying to pick apart religion, but I just want to ask you this...

    I can see how someone bases his decisions on his ethics and values that his god has taught him through teachings of the bible, but how does one actually talk to god and make a decision to going to war with another country or not?
    I am a Christian. However, I am not so sure where I am with the "having a conversation and getting a direct answer from God about whether we should go to war with another country". Do I believe in praying for guidance? Sure. But do I believe God tells any of these politicians EXACTLY what to do? I am not one to say as I don't know.
    I'm Back...
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Mdrol 53426 Oct.2012
    By Nova1723 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 09:49 AM
  2. M-DROL batch 52707 MAY 2012.
    By supra888 in forum Cycle Info
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 06:08 AM
  3. Ordering A Pizza In 2012
    By purebred in forum Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 08:08 AM
  4. Letter from 2012 in Obama's America
    By David Dunn in forum Politics
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 12:50 PM
Log in
Log in