presidential candidates

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Joe,

You're proving my point about how both parties are one in the same. I agree with you about Libya, although it's small potatoes compared to the war on two fronts Bush initiated.





Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Sorry, my history is different than yours. Bush did not start ANYTHING in the Middle East. What is going on know is primarily a result of actions taken by England many decades ago. Those problems were escalated by Mr. Peanut and then never handled properly by ANY administration since.

History is NOT measured in 4 or 8 year blocks. Things move slow. We just see them as "recent" because of our short life spans. ALL world problems span decades or centuries.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
What cure? Explain to me how Romney or Perry(the two GOP front runners) are any different from Obama, fiscally speaking.

How can anyone explain a difference when there is no difference.

I think both Romney and Perry are trying to out Obama obama.
 

Camper

Not a Member
Sorry, my history is different than yours. Bush did not start ANYTHING in the Middle East. What is going on know is primarily a result of actions taken by England many decades ago. Those problems were escalated by Mr. Peanut and then never handled properly by ANY administration since.

History is NOT measured in 4 or 8 year blocks. Things move slow. We just see them as "recent" because of our short life spans. ALL world problems span decades or centuries.

Yes and no...Yes, regarding the origins of the Mid-East geo political situation. However, it was none other than GW Bush who decided to invade Iraq.



Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
An outside the box solution is more likely in 2016, if none of the RINOs get the nod in 2012.

I see what you're saying. And I agree. But if the people aren't ready for conservatism now, what makes you think they will be in 4 more years?

My outside the box solution has been the bread and butter of the people for well over 100 years. It's the CONSTITUTION. We need to remind people that the Constitution is an "all or nothing" document. Regardless if you like one right and despise another, we all need to keep the government in check when they attack ANY right. And tho they might like Obamacare or social security, they need to make a choice... their programs or liberty.

The outside the box solution is the states, and the power over the federal government granted to them by the Constitution. The states have the power to change the federal government. But they won't, if big government people are in charge of the legislatures. It all starts at the grass roots levels... not at the top. Your state rep and senator are more important than the president right now.

Screw the president. He has no power, when confronted with an opposing Congress. I'll vote for none of the above. If your vote is beside one that you hate, then history will show you as supporting that candidate, regardless of feelings. However, if you vote for a 3rd party... and many others do also... it has the possibility to catch on... like Disco. :D
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What cure? Explain to me how Romney or Perry(the two GOP front runners) are any different from Obama, fiscally speaking.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
It amazes me that so many people can't tell the difference between the most radically liberal president this country's ever had and even the moderate GOP candidates. The first item to consider might be the fact that these candidates have pledged to repeal, defund or issue to the states a blanket opt-out for Obamacare. The second would be the de-regulation of our energy resources and the overhaul, if not outright elimination of the EPA as we know it. Third would be the re-funding of our military, combined with the other areas that would see significant budget cuts (eg. Green Jobs) under a GOP administration. Granted, the GOP is not without sin but the growth of government and the related spending went ballistic the moment Obama took office, especially the first two years when he was supported by Democrat super majorities in Congress. The two parties are NOT the same fiscally - no way, no how.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
It amazes me that so many people can't tell the difference between the most radically liberal president this country's ever had and even the moderate GOP candidates. The first item to consider might be the fact that these candidates have pledged to repeal, defund or issue to the states a blanket opt-out for Obamacare. The second would be the de-regulation of our energy resources and the overhaul, if not outright elimination of the EPA as we know it. Third would be the re-funding of our military, combined with the other areas that would see significant budget cuts (eg. Green Jobs) under a GOP administration. Granted, the GOP is not without sin but the growth of government and the related spending went ballistic the moment Obama took office, especially the first two years when he was supported by Democrat super majorities in Congress. The two parties are NOT the same fiscally - no way, no how.

Apparently, you're forgetting the growth of gubmint under Jr. Tho it's not nearly as humungous as Obamalamadingdong, it was still humungous. He spent kajillions; whereas Obamalamadingdong has spent godzillions.

263godzillion.png
 

Camper

Not a Member
It amazes me that so many people can't tell the difference between the most radically liberal president this country's ever had and even the moderate GOP candidates. The first item to consider might be the fact that these candidates have pledged to repeal, defund or issue to the states a blanket opt-out for Obamacare. The second would be the de-regulation of our energy resources and the overhaul, if not outright elimination of the EPA as we know it. Third would be the re-funding of our military, combined with the other areas that would see significant budget cuts (eg. Green Jobs) under a GOP administration. Granted, the GOP is not without sin but the growth of government and the related spending went ballistic the moment Obama took office, especially the first two years when he was supported by Democrat super majorities in Congress. The two parties are NOT the same fiscally - no way, no how.

It amazes me how many people forget the similarities between the Retardplicans and the Dumbocrats.

Lest we forget, It was George Bush Senior who signed into law the Americans With Disabilities Act and George Bush Jr. Who signed into law the Medicare Prescription Benefit. Oh, and it was Ronald Reagan who raised taxes, both as governor of California and as president.



Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
It amazes me how many people forget the similarities between the Retardplicans and the Dumbocrats.

Lest we forget, It was George Bush Senior who signed into law the Americans With Disabilities Act and George Bush Jr. Who signed into law the Medicare Prescription Benefit. Oh, and it was Ronald Reagan who raised taxes, both as governor of California and as president.

Here we go with the Reagan bashing again.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
So with spending like this every year that turns into billions a year wasted.So again is there even one of the candidates that will even try and put a stop to this???

Apparently, you're not familiar with Ron Paul. He would try to put a stop to all of this and much, much more.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
I understand the example are minor I could list hundreds of minor spending that turn into billions a year and over say ten years trillions.My point is they add up.When the Minor spending is look at just that minor no one will ever do anything about it.As far as Eliminateing these useless departments no one will no matter who says they will, they will not.

Ron Paul will fight for it. What he can get by Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B is another matter. He could fire their top execs and not replace them, though, limiting the non-monetary damage they can do. That's something.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
But if the people aren't ready for conservatism now, what makes you think they will be in 4 more years?

What makes you think that they know or even care about a conservative winner when no one outside of Paul or Cain can't be defined as one?

I think this will happen, IF someone wins other than Obama, it is not because they are better than Obama but because people fired Obama - nothing more than that.

It amazes me that so many people can't tell the difference between the most radically liberal president this country's ever had and even the moderate GOP candidates.

Why is that amazing?

We lived with a republican majority under Clinton and still we had spending too much going on, and under Bush didn't we increase spending kind of a lot?

Didn't many also make the claim that Clinton was the most radically liberal president we had?


The first item to consider might be the fact that these candidates have pledged to repeal, defund or issue to the states a blanket opt-out for Obamacare.

Ain't going to happen, it just won't.

There is absolutely no fight in the congress now so to expect it to happen by any republican mainstream idiots is like expecting the sun to rise in the west.

The second would be the de-regulation of our energy resources and the overhaul, if not outright elimination of the EPA as we know it.

Nope won't happen either, not with the republicans. They care just like the dems about poll numbers and getting reelected and the president, who ever it is, will also care.

Third would be the re-funding of our military, combined with the other areas that would see significant budget cuts (eg. Green Jobs) under a GOP administration.

How about we cut the military to what we really need, take our troops out of Korea, the Middle East, all Nato operations and end our participation with Nato and the UN - the amount of money we spend comes out of those defense budgets.

Revamp the military contract system, redo our military life cycle programs and return to an open disposal system for military good to the tax payers - all money savers.

Granted, the GOP is not without sin but the growth of government and the related spending went ballistic the moment Obama took office, especially the first two years when he was supported by Democrat super majorities in Congress. The two parties are NOT the same fiscally - no way, no how.

But they are the same, that is what it looks like to the common person who doesn't know who a democrat is or what a republican stands for.

There seems to be a misconception that the people care about politics in this country, we are one of the few that is politically inept when it comes to who's who and what's what in our government.

Part of this is because the media but a large part of it has to do with the fact that like the relationship that the government has with business, the one that the people see is not about working together or anything close to it but a divisive and hostile place where nothing gets done except to spend money.

How about the republicans grasping onto a few good ideas for once, like making a single voting day that is a holiday - elections are held on that day and the polls are open 24 hours. None of this opens at 7 and closes at 7 crap with people scrambling around after work.
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
Apparently, you're not familiar with Ron Paul. He would try to put a stop to all of this and much, much more.

Well maybe Im more familiar with paul more then you think.All the earmarks listed were in fact earmarks requsted be Ron Paul.
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
Ron Paul will fight for it. What he can get by Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B is another matter. He could fire their top execs and not replace them, though, limiting the non-monetary damage they can do. That's something.

IMHO Ron Paul will fight for none of it.As I said in post 29 I see Mr pauls NO VOTES not as a man standing up for what he belives to be right.But a look at me im the smart guy in the room Im the only guy who has never voted to increase out deficet.Why do I see his votes this way?Because he has said himself more then once,He knows the bills are going to pass anyway so why not get some of that spending money we dont have,that he stands against when he votes no.
 
Top