presidential candidates

[Tennesseahawk]

Did you not understand his point? Who, in your opinion is the cure? sheesh.

Anyone who isn't the disease. Anyone who embraces the Constitution, instead of shatting on it.

 

[witness23]

Anyone who isn't the disease. Anyone who embraces the Constitution, instead of shatting on it.

Okay, so in your opinion who is that? You don't have to limit your choice to those that have taken part in the debates, it can be anyone, Christie, Palin, Layoutshooters mystery candidate, anyone. Who do you feel is that person?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Ron Paul for one. I'm not saying he's the be all end all. He just has to get the message out there.

But like I said... the president will be useless against a status quo Congress. It has to start at the local/state level, and work its way up.

 

[greg334]

I think T-Hawk, Reagan did do very well to work with congress to get things passed from both ends of the aisle. But given the political climate of that time and the actually politicking that went on, the republicans and dems both moved forward and didn't use the hateful rhetoric we have today to trash the other side.

 

[witness23]

especially the first two years when he was supported by Democrat super majorities in Congress.

The points you made about the GOP and what they say they will do is all speculative, like when Bachmann said, "Under President Bachmann, you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again...."

What I really want to point out is that The President did not have a Democratic "Super Majority" in his first two years. If you truly believe that, please explain it to me.

 

[witness23]

Ron Paul for one. I'm not saying he's the be all end all. He just has to get the message out there.

But like I said... the president will be useless against a status quo Congress. It has to start at the local/state level, and work its way up.

Thank you for answering and I would agree with you 100%

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I think T-Hawk, Reagan did do very well to work with congress to get things passed from both ends of the aisle. But given the political climate of that time and the actually politicking that went on, the republicans and dems both moved forward and didn't use the hateful rhetoric we have today to trash the other side.

Oh no. Bork and Thomas were figments of our imaginations; as was Iran/Contra. Star wars program, immigration, etc... the Dems were getting practically everything they wanted, porkwise, and still had to fight Reagan. There was still vitriol in the media, and from the mouths of Congress, but not as much, since Reagan was a beloved president.

 

[greg334]

Oh no. Bork and Thomas were figments of our imaginations; as was Iran/Contra. Star wars program, immigration, etc... the Dems were getting practically everything they wanted, porkwise, and still had to fight Reagan. There was still vitriol in the media, and from the mouths of Congress, but not as much, since Reagan was a beloved president.

Bork - after reading his position on a lot of issues, I'm glad he wasn't confirmed. Thomas?

Let's see... Iran/Contra - I didn't see anything in the news about people protesting Reagan and holding up signs for his death.

Starwars - Oh boy, I didn't see anyone writing how they want us not to be involved with the cold war.

I think if you examine the time when his administration was in full force, even when one of his advisors were making off handed comments, I didn't see anywhere calling for his death or assassination.

When did we have Hollywood types or talk show hosts using the worse language anyone can use to describe him.

Most of this started under Clinton, when the republicans moved into congress, but it intensified under Bush to the point that there was the same type of hatred for him as there was for Nixon.

If you look back at the work between say Tip O'Neal and Reagan, you can see what I am talking about. Each got something out of the deal while at the same time moving everything forward.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I was talking about Congress vs Reagan more than the media. No, you didn't see burning effigies or anything like that. That was a different time. Now that our citizenry is getting a 3rd world education, you can expect a 3rd world mentality/violence from them.

I don't know why you would trade Bork in for Anthony Kennedy.

The evils of Star wars was all over the tv. In fact, they called it star wars because they thought it was some science fiction scam.

Man, you really don't remember the 80s, do you? Good stuff back then?

 

[Pilgrim]

The points you made about the GOP and what they say they will do is all speculative, like when Bachmann said, "Under President Bachmann, you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again...."

That's right - and it's up the voters to hold their elected officeholders to their campaign promises. The fact remains that govt spending under Obama has increased expoentially since he took office; he and the Democrat controlled congress passed a bill for socialized medicine that the public was soundly against. Anti-business govt. regulation has increased far beyond anything seen during Republican administrations. Of course using a quote from Michelle Bachmann doesn't exactly represent the position of a top tier GOP candidate.

What I really want to point out is that The President did not have a Democratic "Super Majority" in his first two years. If you truly believe that, please explain it to me.

It doesn't make any difference what I believe. The fact remains that during his first two years in office the Democrats controlled the Senate by a 59 to 41 margin (counting the two Independents that caucused with them), making it impossible for Republicans to defeat any legislation the Dems wanted to pass even if the GOP voted in a solid block. Add one of the liberal GOP senators like Susan Collins to the Democrat side and the situation was filibuster proof.

The Democrats controlled the House by 256 to 178 - a margin of 59%; Speaker Nancy Pelosi was probably the most liberal Speaker in the history of the Republic. With these kinds of numbers in their favor, Obama and the Democrats were able to pass anything they wanted without significant GOP obstruction in either house. If that's not a Super Majority it's as close as it will ever get.

 

[RLENT]

Of course using a quote from Michelle Bachmann doesn't exactly represent the position of a top tier GOP candidate.

Of course it does ..... in fact, it represents pretty much the entire field (save for one, for sure):

THEY WILL SAY WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET ELECTED

 

[Pilgrim]

Of course it does ..... in fact, it represents pretty much the entire field (save for one, for sure):

There doesn't seem to be any other candidate promising gasoline prices under $2 per gallon.

THEY WILL SAY WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET ELECTED

Ya think???

 

[Tennesseahawk]

There doesn't seem to be any other candidate promising gasoline prices under $2 per gallon.

And how do you think she would deliver on that? First, she would have to stabilize our dollar, by pulling out all that money the Fed put in over the last 10 yrs. To do that, she would have to threaten the leaders of the Fed, who nobody knows who they are. Then, she would have to try and convince investors it's not in their best interest to boost oil prices. Then, she'd have to convince OPEC members to keep the same amount of oil on the market. Then, she'd have to convince Congress to remove the oil drilling moratorium. Then she'd have to convince the oil companies it's in their best interest to build more refineries. Then she'd have to dismantle the EPA, so we could drill for more oil WITHOUT having to worry about endangered sand fleas.

Sure... she can do it... surely as Germany bombed Pearl Harbor!

 

[muttly]

And the first wartime President ever to cut taxes while doing so.

Oh the horror.

 

[RLENT]

There doesn't seem to be any other candidate promising gasoline prices under $2 per gallon.
Ya think???

The two points/statements in my post that you are replying to are inextricably linked.

You separated them - and treated them as though they were separate and unrelated.

This would seem to indicate that you are possibly in a state of non-comprehension as to the intent of my communication.

Here's a hint: the former thing is merely a specific example of the latter.

 

[chefdennis]

1st, let me say that if anyone cares, you can go back to 2008 and find that i supported RP back then to the point of having written him in on my ballot....I sent money to a Nascar team that had his name on the side of their car during the run up...

I don't agree with him an more then a few things simply out of personal feelings, not saying he is right or wrong, there are just things I don't agree with him on.

BUT!! Now this, this is a "ringing endorsement" that should sway more then a few people to the RP side...if you haven't already gone over, I am sure this will do the trick:

The Beatles Would Support Ron Paul

by James E. Miller
The Beatles Would Support Ron Paul by James E. Miller

My local Starbucks has been on a Beatles craze lately. For the past two weeks, albums such as "Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart Club Band" and "Magical Mystery Tour" have been on heavy rotation. This got me to thinking; if the Beatles were still together today, which candidate would they support to be the United States president? The answer is quite obvious: Congressman Ron Paul.

Time and time again, whenever there is a top 100 ranking for "greatest rock and roll band," "greatest album," or "most influential musical artist," the Beatles consistently come out on top. As Eric Olson of MSNBC puts it, "The Beatles are unquestionably the best and most important band in rock history." While you may agree or disagree on the musical talent of the Beatles, their influence on culture during their heyday was tremendous.

Barry Manilow, the famous soft rock crooner responsible for hits such as "Mandy," recently endorsed Ron Paul’s candidacy. Just a week ago, singing legend Tony Bennett had these particularly candid remarks on the Howard Stern show:

"To start a war in Iraq was a tremendous, tremendous mistake internationally."

"But who are the terrorists? Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don’t make a right."

"They flew the plane in, but we caused it. Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop."

Sound familiar?

see enbedded video at link above

"What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?"


There is even a Ron Paul punk rock anthem.

So would an incredibly influential band such as the Beatles jump on the anti-war and pro-market Ron Paul bandwagon? The first overtly political song by the Beatles was "Revolution" written by John Lennon in direct response to the Vietnam War.

Lyrics:

Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right


You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right


The above lyrics represent a clear desire to "change the world" without violence. As Ron Paul wrote in his newest book Liberty Defined:

"People must understand that we can't use violence to have our own way over others – nor should the agents of our government have that power. Even a majority vote should never be accepted as legitimatizing government's use of violence against the people."

Lennon’s criticism of Chairman Mao and communism in "Revolution," is certainly in line with Ron Paul’s beliefs. Paul has always acted on the side of liberty and decentralizing power, not empowering the state for the sake of achieving his ends. In an interview with Reason magazine:

Paul: "Martin Luther King is one of my heroes because he believed in nonviolence and that's a libertarian principle. Rosa Parks is the same way. Gandhi, I admire. Because they're willing to take on the government, they were willing to take on bad laws."

Ron Paul’s position is one of peace and cooperation. The State, by definition, supersedes voluntary cooperation by establishing itself as a monopoly on coercion and violence. This has grown to include drug prohibition. Just in the federal prison system alone there are approximately 103,000 people locked up for drug offenses, that’s 50% of the whole federal prison population.

The influence of drugs on the composition of the Beatles’ music has been speculated for years. While it is widely known the Beatles used drugs during the recording of their most popular albums, they never endorsed their use. Ron Paul has never endorsed the use of drugs either but has held the strict belief that individuals have an absolute right to their body and therefore the government should abstain from prohibiting the use of narcotics. In a Republican presidential debate back in May, Paul outlined his position on drug prohibition brilliantly:

see enbedded video at link above

It’s not a stretch to think that John Lennon or the rest of the Fab Four would get behind such a position based on property rights, self-ownership, and social harmony.

With songs like "Revolution" and "All You Need is Love," the Beatles catalog contains many songs promoting peace and non-violence. While "Revolution" is often characterized as the Beatles’ most political song, "Taxman," written by the under rated George Harrison, is a scathing attack on the State’s parasitic need for more revenue:

"If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet."

If the Beatles were still together and all with us today, it is not farfetched to assume they would support a presidential candidate such as Ron Paul who embraces the libertarian philosophy of non-aggression that detests coercion and violence. Though John Lennon may have drifted toward anarcho-communism (think "Imagine") later in life, his message of peace and cooperation is completely in line with Ron Paul’s principles.

All America needs is not another slick talking politician ready to throw his grandmother under the bus for the sake of one vote. What the country needs is a principled intellectual who holds a record of not only speaking out against the impoverishing policies of the federal government, but one who consistently advocates for peace. Ron Paul is all we need.

September 24, 2011

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

Not forgetting - I agree with that 100%. Bush was not a radical right-winger as the MSM so often tried to portray him. He was a mushy moderate, especially on social issues. Fiscally, Bush was badder - but Obama is worser.