Poster Child for the unfaithful
- Thread starter witness23
- Start date
witness23
Veteran Expediter
but...I thought Newt was one of your guys? How quickly they turn on him.
My guy? Why on God's green Earth would you think that the Newtster was one of my guys? It's a sad commentary when Gingrich is looking good as a choice for the Republican nominee.
I said it a long time ago, the only guy in this field that I would think about voting for is Ron Paul.
Uh ok so you don't like Gingrich NOW. I'm just going by memory from a previous post you had that's all. Something about wanting a competent republican to go up aginst Obama. Your choices were Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. Just trying to keep straight your position.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
So I assume that you would mean the republican candidate field?
If so, does that mean if Gingrich or Romney gets on the ticket, you are voting for Obama?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Mutt,
You should never underestimate what a little edu-ma-cation, when undertaken on ones own initiative, can do for a fella ... it's something I advocate for anyone ..... even you .....
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Out of the current field of Republican candidates, Ron Paul is the only one that stands a chance against Obama.
If it is Gingrich or Romney against Obama, Obama get's my vote.
I want Paul because he is the only one with a fighting chance to actually go up against the President and make it close, or even win the Presidency(which in my opinion, Paul would win). I want to be challenged when choosing a President, and Ron Paul against the President would do that. For me, at least.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Agreed. Why have any of the Obama-lite RINOS when you can have the real Obama? So there are really only two choices: the only decent man in Washington--the only one even proposing freedom, or Obammunism, either directly through Obama or one of his ideological brethren that compose the remainder of the GOP field.
--
You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
If you vote for Obama, you're definitely challenged.
I don't see how someone could vote for Obama if Paul doesn't get the nod. The two couldn't be farther apart. "Out of sugar? I'll take turpentine then." If Paul doesn't get the nod, I'll take a little Sweet 'n' Low of the Constitution and Libertarian parties. They need some serious consideration if we're ever going to break the mold of the two party system.
Last edited:
Mutt,
You should never underestimate what a little edu-ma-cation, when undertaken on ones own initiative, can do for a fella ... it's something I advocate for anyone ..... even you .....
It's just funny that the fella had lamented how the republicans weren't talking about important issues and wanted the candidates to have serious discussions about important topics that really mattered yet felt compelled to post a billboard about something that has nothing to do with whether a person can do the job as president.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
My own comments in this regard were said in the heat of a moment - and are reflective of a very deep level of frustration.
Probably comes as not much of a surprise, given the level of rhetoric that I sometimes (?
) engage in.I cannot, and will not, support any of the other Republican candidates - since every single one of them has pandered to ignorance .... by beating the drums for war (indeed, endless war) in a manner which I consider highly irresponsible and dangerous - to the point of making them absolutely unfit for the office.
The only person on the stage that that spoke the truth (as I see it) in regards to that matter was Dr. Paul.
As repeatedly demonstrated on this forum (IMO), there is a certain segment of the American population who are not interested being educated and informed .... they are only interested in being "right" - in other words, wholly and totally justified in any and all actions (past, current, and future), taken in the so-called "war on terrorism" - and are in fact, unwilling to be honest and straight even with themselves, let alone anyone else. Which is pretty sad in my estimation.
One should never mistake ideological adherence with observation and intelligence.
I am not a fan of Obama by any means (indeed far, far from it), however I'm not willing to engage in constant hysteria about him, while also simultaneously engaging in the self-delusion that many in the Republican Party, and indeed the Party itself as a whole, is any kind of savior.
It is not, and very likely never, ever will be again ... as long as it ignores those things that once made it, and America as a nation, great. There is no evidence to suggest that anything else is currently happening - in fact, the evidence would suggest that the exact opposite is happening - the Party continues ignore it's history and principles, by engaging in those things which makes the "big tent" only smaller (and continue to move, along with the Democratic Party, towards fascism)
This (smaller tent) stems from a misguided (IMO) principle that in order to not "compromise principles" it is necessary to enforce/prohibit things on others (the issues of drugs, abortion, and marriage come immediately to mind) - indeed enforce/prohibit on as many people as possible, through the Federal government. While this might be perfectly fine as long as all (in the party) agree, what will, and has happened, is that as more issues come to the forefront for the enforce/prohibit game, the pool of potential players gets smaller and smaller. It ought to be fairly self-evident where that will ultimately end up. There can be no disputing that this is, in fact, occurring, as it is documented in declining party registration numbers (which are declining faster than the Democratic party, which is larger) of the last ten years or more.
Combine that with being perfectly willing to throw the Constitution under the bus for the sake of political expediency, and you have the "perfect storm". It will be the Party's ultimate doom.
Whatever one can say about Obama, the fact is our "troops" have left Iraq (happened on his watch) - even if that itself is a bit of a lie, considering the presence that remains. I am under no illusions with regard to him as any kind of "man of peace", indeed he is not - he's at least as bad as Bush (if not worse in some respects) and the indication is the all of the remaining candidates will be at least as bad, and likely far worse.
Not all things deserve to survive, and the GOP may very well be one of them ..... as well as our nation .....
Individual survival might be said to be best accomplished by associating and surrounding one's self with those who are not inclined to ignore history and the present environment in which they find themselves.
Both parties are worthy of consideration - however I have deep concerns about both of them. Out of the two, it seems to me that that the Libertarian Party is the better choice, despite whatever political missteps it has had throughout it's history. Running Bob Barr (someone I actually like and have a great deal of respect for, while also understanding that he has some very serious issues philosophically) as a Presidential Candidate is certainly reflective of .... something ....
My concerns with the Constitution Party stem from having a very close inside look at where the Party came from. One of Howard Phillips sons is a former client, and I have spent time with the Phillips family, including Howard and his wife. I find it somewhat difficult to speak ill of those that I largely consider to be people of goodwill generally, and by and large, highly ethical and moral.
However, there is a degree of both religious intolerance and, I would say, religious fanaticism (some of the most fanatically religious tend to be converts), that I find deeply troubling - one only needs to look at the preamble of the party platform to get an idea of what that is all about. Engaging in fantasies about history, and the origins of our nation is not a good sign either. The religious aspect, taken to the extreme (which I would consider not necessarily unlikey), might be really not that much different than how non-Muslims are viewed in a (supposedly) "tolerant" Muslim society - and I'm not basing that solely on what is contained in the party platform. I'll not say any more.
It's absolutely got to be done - because their is no two party system anymore, it's only an illusion - there is only a one-party system, which runs two different slates of candidates.
A lot of people have woken up to that fact, but unfortunately a lot of others (on both sides of the aisle), blinded by adherence to an ideology whose provenance is questionable at best, remain ignorant .... apparently by choice.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
If you vote for Obama, you're definitely challenged.
I don't see how someone could vote for Obama if Paul doesn't get the nod. The two couldn't be farther apart. "Out of sugar? I'll take turpentine then." If Paul doesn't get the nod, I'll take a little Sweet 'n' Low of the Constitution and Libertarian parties. They need some serious consideration if we're ever going to break the mold of the two party system.
A few reasons:
1) our choices are Dr. Paul, Obama, or the other GOP candidates who are Obama-lite. Why have Obama-lite when you can have the real thing?
2) to deny the GOP their reward for sabotaging Dr. Paul's campaign. It would be one thing if a fair campaign was run and Dr. Paul just didn't win, but Dr. Paul's run 3 times and has been sabotaged by his own party 3 times. I'm not willing to see that result in the establishment man, who will perpetuate the National Socialist model of governance--aggressive foreign war coupled with internal repression--win because of it. It's like a trial in which the cops beat a phony confession out of a man, and the judge throws it out, resulting in the defendant walking. The judge denies the State their prize. If he didn't, they'd do it repeatedly.
3) Most importantly, Dr. Paul has only a slim chance of rescuing the Bill of Rights and the economy. Slim. It probably can't be done; we're too far gone. But slim beats none. But if we're not going to succeed in saving the country, the next best option is to step back and not get crushed it falls, and be ready to pick up the pieces and put things back together. And though the socialist RINOs aren't much better (slightly less pathetic, to be more accurate), they probably wouldn't destroy the country quite as fast as Obama. There's no sense in propping the system up, which would actually delay the country's recovery.
4) we know Obama is a Marxist-Leninist. He can't come out and say it, but we all know it. The RINOs, however, pretend to be conservatives, and many people believe them. Remember Bob Dole's "The Conservative From Liberal" slogan? Didn't that make you want to vomit, knowing what a lie it was? I Turtle-snorted before I knew a Turtle that did. If I'm going to have a president who hates the American Way, I'd much rather be done with the subterfuge.
--
You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Monger,
Very well said ..... on all of the points. If the GOP "establishment" succeeds in stopping something that by all rights should occur - by dishonest, corrupt, and nefarious means, there will no victory - ever - only defeat.
They will have have destroyed the Party ...
... coup de grace ... heat shot ...
I like the "Old Yeller" solution - it's already stinkin' bad enough to warrant just puttin' it out of it's misery:
From "Cry Freedom":
Cry freedom cry
From a crowd 10,000 wide
Hope laid upon hope
That this crowd will not subside
Let this flag burn to dust
And a new a fair design be raised
While we wait head in hands
Hands in prayer
And fall into a dreamless sleep again
And we wave our hands
Very well said ..... on all of the points. If the GOP "establishment" succeeds in stopping something that by all rights should occur - by dishonest, corrupt, and nefarious means, there will no victory - ever - only defeat.
They will have have destroyed the Party ...
... coup de grace ... heat shot ...
I like the "Old Yeller" solution - it's already stinkin' bad enough to warrant just puttin' it out of it's misery:
From "Cry Freedom":
Cry freedom cry
From a crowd 10,000 wide
Hope laid upon hope
That this crowd will not subside
Let this flag burn to dust
And a new a fair design be raised
While we wait head in hands
Hands in prayer
And fall into a dreamless sleep again
And we wave our hands
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The premise that it has nothing to do with whether a person can do the job, I think is actually false. (YMMV)
Furthermore, regardless of whether that is actually true or not, I think that the matter speaks to whether the individual is qualified (in the eyes and opinion of a voter) for the job.
I'm all for the premise of personal redemption from past sins - without it, none have any hope - however, it doesn't necessarily follow that such redemption qualifies an individual for the office.
Last edited: