| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: Liberals didn't take Bush seriously either, and he won two terms. Must be because America is so backwards, right? Nobody outside of people who voted for him took Bush seriously (and probably not even all the people who did vote for him). That's all I will say. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
http://www.fraudfactor.com/fffl2kpreselection.html | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On November 17 2011 00:32 Holytornados wrote: I think you're very right. They're just shooting themselves in the foot at every turn. Cain, Perry, Bachman. It's a circus. EDIT: @dirtybird Most of what you said seemed plausible and was stances I agree with, but excise taxes on drugs? Legalizing and taxing drugs will allow people to use them (clearly) in public. So you have someone on lsd driving a car, crashing, and injuring them self and another person (potentially). This costs more tax dollars for the hospital bills than we would have gained from taxes. People wouldn't be smart with their drugs if they were legal any more than they act now; in fact, they would probably be more reckless, as they tend to be with alcohol in this country. That is currently the model for alcohol, and you don't count the benefits of not having an alcohol funded mob anymore. So Legalization of a substance Pros -Tax Money collected -Much less criminal behavior+funding from substance producers+distributors (saving tax money) Cons -Damage caused by/to substance-abusing individuals who wouldn't have obtained the substance when it was illegal If you consider the law enforcement costs, might it just be cheaper to allow the substance in limited way (ie I don't think they would make it legal to use LSD while driving on public roads or when operating heavy machinery in public or when serving as someone's attorney, doing surgery, etc.) Benefit #2 is probably the main benefit of legalization. | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
There is also a lot of similarity in how allegations of marital infidelity sunk the campaigns of Giuliani and Cain. If you look at presidential elections from the past 40 years, you see that the more charismatic/folksy speaking candidate always gets the nomination or wins the election. Obama>McCain, GWB>Kerry, GWB>Gore, Clinton>Dole, Clinton>GHWB, Reagan>Dukakis, and so on. Based upon this observation, I see no hope for either Romney or Newt in a head-to-head against Obama. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:51 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Why? If he doesn't get Republican nominee I know he's going to try and run as 3rd party. They either buck up and join us or get screwed over. Which is kinda logical if you think about it because if he was running as 3rd party he wouldn't have as much face time as the rest of these stooges. Something he learned in the 1980's when he ran as a libertarian candidate. You pretty much get ignored if you try to run as something else. @aksfjh I agree sometimes politicians have many meanings but, only a true servant of the people would stay consistent with their message without having to lie and flip flop. Except I believe a true servant responds to new information and is willing to compromise on some ideals for the realistic good. "True servant" talk is exactly what I'm talking about. I believe you can say things like, "I don't like how he once supported ________, but now supports ________." However, claiming he doesn't serve the people because of that characteristic is a little disingenuous. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
And it doesn't matter how many times Ron Paul runs. He has radical opinions which do not resonate with steady, working middle-aged people. These people go to work every day, and come home to a quiet night in front of the TV. They are put off by the idea of radical change. People can use all sorts of hyperbole about the state of our country, but the fact is that most people still just do the same old things: work, go to the shopping center, eat at Chili's, watch TV, etc. Life is the same as it ever was. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: Liberals didn't take Bush seriously either, and he won two terms. Must be because America is so backwards, right? Actually, yes. To most of the Western world, America is pretty fucking backwards. On November 17 2011 06:52 xDaunt wrote: Comparing Newt to Palin is just.... stupid. The two are complete opposites, from policies, to intelligence, to sexiness. God damn, I love how some Republicans who hold Newt up are the same people who tout "sanctity of marriage" when discussing gay marriage. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On November 17 2011 06:52 xDaunt wrote: Comparing Newt to Palin is just.... stupid. The two are complete opposites, from policies, to intelligence, to sexiness. I think you completely missed my point. Go watch that video and educate yourself a little about the man. @jdsowa since when is pulling all troops from bases over seas and stopping all wars radical? Since when is balancing the budget within three years radical? Seriously people with this defeatist attitude we will never take back our country. And btw Ive met middle aged folks that have switched republican party from democratic party just to vote for the guy. | ||
|
Camdeon
United States14 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 17 2011 07:34 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: I think you completely missed my point. Go watch that video and educate yourself a little about the man. @jdsowa since when is pulling all troops from bases over seas and stopping all wars radical? Since when is balancing the budget within three years radical? Seriously people with this defeatist attitude we will never take back our country. And btw Ive met middle aged folks that have switched republican party from democratic party just to vote for the guy. And you're relying upon MSNBC for real information about the republican nominees? I don't think much else needs be said. I guarantee that I know about 100x more about Gingrich than you do. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On November 17 2011 02:11 Krikkitone wrote: That is currently the model for alcohol, and you don't count the benefits of not having an alcohol funded mob anymore. So Legalization of a substance Pros -Tax Money collected -Much less criminal behavior+funding from substance producers+distributors (saving tax money) Cons -Damage caused by/to substance-abusing individuals who wouldn't have obtained the substance when it was illegal If you consider the law enforcement costs, might it just be cheaper to allow the substance in limited way (ie I don't think they would make it legal to use LSD while driving on public roads or when operating heavy machinery in public or when serving as someone's attorney, doing surgery, etc.) Benefit #2 is probably the main benefit of legalization. Just thought I should point out that your con relies on two assumptions
The point of this is the blatant hypocrisy in having alcohol legalised which has a far worse risk profile than weed. Anyway, that is my two cents. Edit: Question time ladies. What are your thoughts on the new military base in Darwin (that's in Australia for the geographically challenged), that will open in July next year. Apparently it will start with 250 marines on a six month rotation expanding up to a maximum of 2,500. The US will have use of the ports and airfields. There has been some concern here that it will increase tensions in the Asia Pacific area, particluarly Indonesia and China. Given some of the republican candidates desire to close some foreign bases, what are your thoughts on this new one. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On November 17 2011 06:52 xDaunt wrote: Comparing Newt to Palin is just.... stupid. The two are complete opposites, from policies, to intelligence, to sexiness. To be fair Palin's policies are actually better than Gingrich's. As for intelligence... yeah you're probably right Gingrich is quite the cunning snake. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On November 17 2011 06:54 jdsowa wrote: Newt was probably the most powerful and visible Republican from 1994-2000. He has just as much name recognition as John McCain. He doesn't have the "war hero" tag going for him, though. But then, Mitt Romney is a pretty weak opponent. And it doesn't matter how many times Ron Paul runs. He has radical opinions which do not resonate with steady, working middle-aged people. These people go to work every day, and come home to a quiet night in front of the TV. They are put off by the idea of radical change. People can use all sorts of hyperbole about the state of our country, but the fact is that most people still just do the same old things: work, go to the shopping center, eat at Chili's, watch TV, etc. Life is the same as it ever was. No life isn't the same as it ever was. It gets progressively worse. Ron Paul has many times stated that although he doesn't think that his candidacy is hopeless, he is running because he first and foremost wants to spread the idea of what is right. And let's look at the bright side... first time he ran as libertarian no one really talked about him. In 2008 he ran and gained some support, now he's running and he has even more support. The process is slow but the people are wising up. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-freddie-scrutiny-20111116,0,4347375.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: latimes/news/politics (L.A. Times - Politics) @Camedon hmmm...I wouldn't support MIchelle because she is getting money from the same people we bailed out. Freddie Mac: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/16/bachmann-took-campaign-money-from-freddie-while-she-was-fighting-them/#ixzz1duuOfDep @Kiarip Well said. I totally agree with what you just said. ^^ | ||
|
ilovelings
Argentina776 Posts
| ||
|
Serpest
United States603 Posts
On November 17 2011 06:35 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @jdsowa Not really. Grinrich did not run twice like the guy your comparing him with. Ron Paul has bee running not just once but three times already. Steadily growing in size with even bigger numbers. Also, just for comparison Mccain ran for office twice in 2000 and 2008 which sets him apart from Newt. I think that Newt Gingrich, is essentially just Sarah Palin to the tenth power when it comes to this political race. This guy is just all about selling his books and Dvds. Here I'll show ya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZnmqkHo_XI Omg, that video was hilarious, but every time I see who the republican party is putting up for candidacy (or at the very least, rooting for) a little part of me curls up, cries, and dies inside. I'm republican, but people like Palin, Bachmann, Perry, urgh... make me want to permanently expatriate from the US. Why can't more sensible people like Huntsman get their chance in the limelight? Most ironic is that 100 to 50 years ago, the Republican and Democrat parties were completely opposite of what they are today. | ||
|
Shinta)
United States1716 Posts
Erg..... Americans voted for him the first time because his father was a 2 time president before him. They thought "well he wasn't that bad, and this Clinton guy had sex with a woman that wasn't his wife, so let's not vote Democratic (hence they voted for Bush, who is a complete retard). That's talking about the people who actually voted for him though.... Bush didn't even win the popular election, meaning the majority of voters in the USA voted against Bush. Bush won because the electoral college (the people who's vote actually matters, people the popular vote isn't worth much of anything) voted for Bush, because they had a personal interest in him becoming President. Quite honestly though, anyone who is an American, and loves America, and knows what America is, what it stands for, and on what terms it was founded and established (and recognized).... needs to vote for Ron Paul. He's the only president that is actually capable of making a change. Everyone else has too many big corporations running them, that even if they add into their speeches that they are going to adopt more Ron Paul stuff, they still wouldn't implement any of them once their term started. None of the other candidates have the power to make any change, and most of the other candidates are too stupid to even know what changes need to be made. Most are targeting their plans at specific people, or specific issues, and pretty much ignore the majority of the problems. Ron Paul, if you listened to any of the presidential debates for the past like 12 years, is the only person who discusses a plan that will actually bring upon change. He explains what problems exist, and how he aims to fix them. He believes in the constitution, which under the Patriot Act is null and void at any time the president of the United States wishes to make it so (hence why Obama and the executive branch can so easily do things such as waging war without even asking the legislative branch for permission). I don't even understand why some people look at the other candidates as a possible president. All of them are completely incompetent. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
The second term was just stupid. I still don't understand how Americans are so stupid to believe the Swiftboating of Kerry. I still don't know how people could question the service of someone who actually went to Vietnam in the draft to 1 guy who hid in the National Guard and another who got draft deferments. | ||
| ||
|
Kung Fu Cup
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
The PondCast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Mixu vs TBD
Spirit vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Shuttle
BeSt vs Rush
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
