I am disgusted with our party. I pray to god we get fresh blood in 16

[MeBelle]

Paul Ryan may be just the lunatic you're looking for...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo9t5XK0FhA&ob=av2]Billy Joel - You May Be Right - YouTube[/ame]


Sorry Gramps, I was inspired!!

 

[Sarah G]

Bill Bennett knows Newt personally and says he has problems. This gives me pause because I've considered Bennett a respectable man and usually trust his judgment.

I remember Newt as speaker and thought he did a good job. Problem is Bennett says he knows Newt personally and listed a few characteristics that bother me. I got a sense of some of them but just wrote it off as personality glitches when put on the spot. Bill however says they are part of Newts core. Ie self agrandizing and grandiose ideas beyond the ones we have heard about. He thinks as many here have said that if Newt wins the nomination the election will become about his past.

How did our party get relegated to such shitty choices? Obama should be so fucking easy to beat yet at every turn its all about the negativity of our party.

Perry can't debate to save his life. And yes I know were not electing a debater n chief but if he can't sell himself on the stage against Obama the public won't vote for him.

Pauls foreign policy is nuts.

Santorum is too extreme for this election cycle. The country doesn't want to go from far left to far right.

Newt can't outrun his past long enough to talk about current events.

Bachmann just turns me off personally.

Huntsman sounds centered but I honestly don't know anything about the man. And if I don't the public at large won't have a clue.

That leaves Romney, the KING FLIP FLOPPER.


WTF


I like Santorum and Bachmanns ideas but it won't fly in this election so WTF is a person to do? Sitting out or writing in a name is a sheer waste because it could lead to another Obama term. He has to go so I guess I just have to bite my tongue and vote for whoever gets the nomination. This is beginning to feel just like 08 and it straight pisses me off.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this post but I don't care. I don't have a job secure from this shitty economy and I desperately need change.

2016 might be a good year for the GOP. Jeb, Marco Rubio, maybe that chubby guy Chris Christie..

I just want congress back. They're the ones who are screwing everything up.

 

[Oscar Wao]

With the way things are going, the GOP is going to keep the House, and win the Senate.

 

[Chris]

The Greedy Old People's party can't get fresh blood by definition.

They are all about returning to the past.

Specifically Dickinsean England.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Greedy Old People's party can't get fresh blood by definition.

They are all about returning to the past.

Specifically Dickinsean England.

Chris, marxism failed get over it stop fighting for one world bs and join reality. Lets fight to remain a first world country.

 

[Douger]

Granpa murkin. Please elaborate (with links) on your beef with Paul's foreign policy issues.

 

[Chris]

The Greedy Old People's party can't get fresh blood by definition.

They are all about returning to the past.

Specifically Dickinsean England.

Chris, marxism failed get over it stop fighting for one world bs and join reality. Lets fight to remain a first world country.

A marxist is what a Republican calls someone who is smarter than they are.

 

[editec]

I think it somewhat telling that the younger republicans seem to gravitate to Ron Paul, while the older republicans are gravitating toward more mainline GOP candidates.

What is Ron Paul really proposing?

Far as I can tell he is proposing a REAL CHANGE in the way this nation works.

And FWIW, it doesn't appear to me to be what the MASTERS (of both parties) have planned.

I will be shocked, and somewhat impressed by the changing of the guard of the GOP if the GOP nominates Ron Paul.

But I suspect if RP takes office, and actually attempts to make the changes he proposes?

He will encounter a magic bullet.

His attack on the FED and his attack on the military industrial complex is, I think, a very dangerous thing for any POL to do. (that is probably what got JFK killed, ya know?)

Newt and the rest? They will, I suspect, continue the same tired old STATIST games that we've had for the last 30 years. They'll talk talk talk about FREEDOM AND FREE MARKET nonsense while continuing their INSIDERS games.

But Ron Paul?

Well I suspect to the GOP leadership, Ron Paul is a loose cannon -- a person whose ideas are much much more threatening to their cabal than anything Obama is EVER going to be able to get done.

My hat's off to you RP supporters.

Even though I don't think that RP has the formula for solving this nation's basic problems, I DO think he sincerely cares about this nation...unlike the rest of the tools the GOP is advancing.

 

[Sarah G]

The Greedy Old People's party can't get fresh blood by definition.

They are all about returning to the past.

Specifically Dickinsean England.

Chris, marxism failed get over it stop fighting for one world bs and join reality. Lets fight to remain a first world country.

A marxist is what a Republican calls someone who is smarter than they are.

True.

 

[occupied]

I have often asked conservatives if there is such a thing as too far to the right, well this is it. In spite of America being a generally right wing country the republicans have finally went a bridge too far. You are running out of people who can say this stuff sincerely without seeming crazy.

 

[Avorysuds]

Paul is not an option Matthew. He is just as fucked up as our other candidates. He will retire soon after this election and drift into history with his eyebrows. Thank god.

We need new blood. Screw these old lifers.

I doubt you have spent an honest 10 minutes looking into Ron Paul.

Next I'd like to point out that I called it, it took about 1 month or you to catch up to what I was telling you about Newt... Of course you will just react saying something near incoherent and how Paul sucks, but in the end I also doubt you spent an honest 10 minutes looking into any candidate you have supported so far.

Gramps, YOU are the problem. The Political infants that invest no amount meaningful effort despite all the answers being at your finger tips. It’s posers like you in the Republican party that help Neocons Big Government Progressives like Newt, or mindless drones, vapid of the basics on the most simple issues that this country faces like Cain rise to the top… Only to start sob story threads wallowing in your own self induced regurgitated cycle of dumping all your hopes in a candidate you knew nothing about.

I have supported Paul for 4+ years, when I hear you talk about him it’s clear you lack the ability to even comprehend what he talks about because you honestly don’t want to understand it. You make the choice to be irrelevant and uneducated on the issues.

I honestly think you are a good person… but when it comes to politics you care more about the “he said she said bullshit” than giving real answers to real problems more than a glance. There is no doubt in my mind I know more about Cain and more about Newt several times over than yourself…

I hope you learn from your mistakes rather than repeat them. I hope you can swallow your pride and disarm you defensive attitude to anyone that has more to say than “Fuck Obama!!!”

Of course you have no doubt that your far superior politically than me. Your a Fuckin Paul supporter. You my friend are the bigger idiot. You deal in Pauls what ifs while I face reality.

Ps. I would consider voting for Obama long before I would ever vote for the lunatic you support. Obama would cut our defense. Paul would decimate it.

There is no doubt in my mind you would vote for Obama over a conservative... You support Newt, one of the bigger Progressives in American history. You are aware Newt's favorite politician is FDR correct? Of course you don't, you never did any research on the man.

While you think you’re being clever or “HAHA! take that” mean, your vote for Obama only makes sense to anyone that reads your posts and knows who you have supported this campaign season.

 

[Avorysuds]

Granpa murkin. Please elaborate (with links) on your beef with Paul's foreign policy issues.

As Gramps said, he comes here to vent, not to honestly debate. Gramps has no links and will never provide any proof of his hate for Paul. Ask Gramps to post a 12 page hate thread with links and video on Obama and he will proved you with 24 pages, ask Gramps to back up his single claim Paul is "insane, kooky, crazy" on foreign policy and he will respond with "did you see Paul’s eyebrows almost fall off!!!! OMG IT WAS SO FUNNY!!!" This coming for a guy that supports the Pillsbury dough boy.

Gramps says “Newt can’t out run his past.” Yeah, it’s called his fucking record, Newt can’t outrun his record… Funny how Newt is running from some of the biggest problems in his record that are less than a year old, like supporting Obamacare, TARP, the stimulus, Libya and so on…

 

[Jackson]

Bill Bennett knows Newt personally and says he has problems. This gives me pause because I've considered Bennett a respectable man and usually trust his judgment.

I remember Newt as speaker and thought he did a good job. Problem is Bennett says he knows Newt personally and listed a few characteristics that bother me. I got a sense of some of them but just wrote it off as personality glitches when put on the spot. Bill however says they are part of Newts core. Ie self agrandizing and grandiose ideas beyond the ones we have heard about. He thinks as many here have said that if Newt wins the nomination the election will become about his past.

How did our party get relegated to such shitty choices? Obama should be so fucking easy to beat yet at every turn its all about the negativity of our party.

Perry can't debate to save his life. And yes I know were not electing a debater n chief but if he can't sell himself on the stage against Obama the public won't vote for him.

Pauls foreign policy is nuts.

Santorum is too extreme for this election cycle. The country doesn't want to go from far left to far right.

Newt can't outrun his past long enough to talk about current events.

Bachmann just turns me off personally.

Huntsman sounds centered but I honestly don't know anything about the man. And if I don't the public at large won't have a clue.

That leaves Romney, the KING FLIP FLOPPER.


WTF


I like Santorum and Bachmanns ideas but it won't fly in this election so WTF is a person to do? Sitting out or writing in a name is a sheer waste because it could lead to another Obama term. He has to go so I guess I just have to bite my tongue and vote for whoever gets the nomination. This is beginning to feel just like 08 and it straight pisses me off.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this post but I don't care. I don't have a job secure from this shitty economy and I desperately need change.

I have a great deal of respect for Bennett, too. But I am not going to let his or anyone elses opinion without facts change my mind. Bennett is not without flaws and we don't know what has transpired between them. I'm still going on the issues and I like the the Contract with America 2012. What character flaws Gingrich might have, I would put up against Obama's and call Gingrich the overall winner for the country.

 

[EriktheRed]

No, Paul would remove all the waste in our military spending.

BTW, he's not as nuts on foreign policy as you think. Remember, the President doesn't get to do what he wants carte blanche. He's got a Congress, in addition to his Cabinet, to keep him in line.

Good luck getting the Congress to actually do that, though. And as we're already seeing, when it comes to curtailing runaway Executive power, you definitely shouldn't count on the Chief executive to do it. Not even a President Paul.

 

[Jackson]

Granpa murkin. Please elaborate (with links) on your beef with Paul's foreign policy issues.

As Gramps said, he comes here to vent, not to honestly debate. Gramps has no links and will never provide any proof of his hate for Paul. Ask Gramps to post a 12 page hate thread with links and video on Obama and he will proved you with 24 pages, ask Gramps to back up his single claim Paul is "insane, kooky, crazy" on foreign policy and he will respond with "did you see Paul’s eyebrows almost fall off!!!! OMG IT WAS SO FUNNY!!!" This coming for a guy that supports the Pillsbury dough boy.

Gramps says “Newt can’t out run his past.” Yeah, it’s called his fucking record, Newt can’t outrun his record… Funny how Newt is running from some of the biggest problems in his record that are less than a year old, like supporting Obamacare, TARP, the stimulus, Libya and so on…

Ron Paul's foreign policy:

Afghanistan/Pakistan: As part of a larger cessation of military operations abroad, Paul wants to swiftly withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and transfer power to Afghan officials. "We'll have less danger to us if we don't occupy foreign countries, because that's the top motivation for the desire to come here and kill Americans," he contends.

So we are to let the terrorist camps abound without recourse. What is our safety in that? Does he not remember 9/11? Many Americans do.

Paul also condemns drone strikes, which he says are inciting anti-Americanism and civil war in Pakistan. "For everyone you kill," he observes, "you probably create 10 new people who hate our guts and would like to do us harm."

Then Bin Laden would not have been caught.

Military spending: Military spending and defense spending are two different beasts, according to Paul. "We can spend money on defense -- that's OK -- but we just can't afford all these hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending on all these wars," he argues

.

We are in a more dangerous place in the world than ever before. I believe in being prepared for the worst when it comes to the security of this nation.

Immigration/borders: Paul's top national security priority is securing the United States' borders. He opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants and granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the United States. But he's not a fan of a "barbed-wire fence with machine guns," which he claims could actually keep Americans penned in rather than prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country. "I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in," he declared in September. "In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital, and there's capital controls and there's people controls."

This is nonsense.

Israel/Palestine: Paul thinks the United States should stay "friends" with Israel but cut off foreign aid, which he says harms Israel's national sovereignty. In a floor speech reproduced in his book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship, Paul recommends staying neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "f we have solidarity with Israel, then we have hostility to the Palestinians," he explains.

If there is anyplace we need a real ally, it is in the Middle East!

Iran/nukes: He opposes sanctions on Iran, thinks the Iranian nuclear threat has been exaggerated, and proposes offering Iran "friendship."

Unbelievable. Another Obama.

Trade: Paul is a firm believer in free trade -- a conviction he cites to prove he's not isolationist -- but not free trade agreements or multilateral institutions like the World Trade Organization. That's why Paul thinks America's "best friend" is not Israel or France or Britain -- but Canada. "We trade more with them than anybody else … and we give them no foreign aid," he explains.

We want more friends than enemies. It doesn’t depend on trade. Where would we be when we need coalitions?

War on terror/detainees: Paul has called waterboarding torture and torture "un-American," has opposed the Patriot Act and the Guantánamo Bay detention center, and has argued that terrorism suspects should be tried in civilian courts. He claims that waging war "against a tactic" has enabled the president to flaunt the law and become the "prosecutor, the executor, the judge, and the jury," as in the case of the targeted killing of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Paul did, however, support the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Security for the US is paramount. Enhanced interrogation is not flaunting the law.

Other issues: One of Paul's less publicized critiques of the war on terror is airport security. Paul pledges to replace the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) with private security firms, prevent the TSA from "forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane," and allow pilots to carry firearms to stymie future 9/11-style attacks.

Ogle me all you like as long as you do it to would be terrorists, too!

 

[WillowTree]

Paul Ryan may be just the lunatic you're looking for...

says the asswipe howling at da moon

 

[Toro]

Bill Bennett knows Newt personally and says he has problems. This gives me pause because I've considered Bennett a respectable man and usually trust his judgment.

This seems to be a recurring problem. It seems that most people who know Newt well or worked for him aren't supporting him.

 

[Toro]

Bill Bennett knows Newt personally and says he has problems. This gives me pause because I've considered Bennett a respectable man and usually trust his judgment.

I remember Newt as speaker and thought he did a good job. Problem is Bennett says he knows Newt personally and listed a few characteristics that bother me. I got a sense of some of them but just wrote it off as personality glitches when put on the spot. Bill however says they are part of Newts core. Ie self agrandizing and grandiose ideas beyond the ones we have heard about. He thinks as many here have said that if Newt wins the nomination the election will become about his past.

How did our party get relegated to such shitty choices? Obama should be so fucking easy to beat yet at every turn its all about the negativity of our party.

Perry can't debate to save his life. And yes I know were not electing a debater n chief but if he can't sell himself on the stage against Obama the public won't vote for him.

Pauls foreign policy is nuts.

Santorum is too extreme for this election cycle. The country doesn't want to go from far left to far right.

Newt can't outrun his past long enough to talk about current events.

Bachmann just turns me off personally.

Huntsman sounds centered but I honestly don't know anything about the man. And if I don't the public at large won't have a clue.

That leaves Romney, the KING FLIP FLOPPER.


WTF


I like Santorum and Bachmanns ideas but it won't fly in this election so WTF is a person to do? Sitting out or writing in a name is a sheer waste because it could lead to another Obama term. He has to go so I guess I just have to bite my tongue and vote for whoever gets the nomination. This is beginning to feel just like 08 and it straight pisses me off.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this post but I don't care. I don't have a job secure from this shitty economy and I desperately need change.

I think you're right. It is surprising how weak the field is.

It feels like 1992, when the Democrat field appeared weak because everyone thought Bush would triumph. Obama is very beatable. The Presidency is there for the taking for the Republicans.

 

[Jackson]

Bill Bennett knows Newt personally and says he has problems. This gives me pause because I've considered Bennett a respectable man and usually trust his judgment.

I remember Newt as speaker and thought he did a good job. Problem is Bennett says he knows Newt personally and listed a few characteristics that bother me. I got a sense of some of them but just wrote it off as personality glitches when put on the spot. Bill however says they are part of Newts core. Ie self agrandizing and grandiose ideas beyond the ones we have heard about. He thinks as many here have said that if Newt wins the nomination the election will become about his past.

How did our party get relegated to such shitty choices? Obama should be so fucking easy to beat yet at every turn its all about the negativity of our party.

Perry can't debate to save his life. And yes I know were not electing a debater n chief but if he can't sell himself on the stage against Obama the public won't vote for him.

Pauls foreign policy is nuts.

Santorum is too extreme for this election cycle. The country doesn't want to go from far left to far right.

Newt can't outrun his past long enough to talk about current events.

Bachmann just turns me off personally.

Huntsman sounds centered but I honestly don't know anything about the man. And if I don't the public at large won't have a clue.

That leaves Romney, the KING FLIP FLOPPER.


WTF


I like Santorum and Bachmanns ideas but it won't fly in this election so WTF is a person to do? Sitting out or writing in a name is a sheer waste because it could lead to another Obama term. He has to go so I guess I just have to bite my tongue and vote for whoever gets the nomination. This is beginning to feel just like 08 and it straight pisses me off.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this post but I don't care. I don't have a job secure from this shitty economy and I desperately need change.

Honestly, maybe you just give in to the idea that Obama will be re-elected, and then instead of trying to derail every single thing Obama wants to do, how about Republicans try to actually start working with Obama and the Democrats to accomplish something positive. And I am not saying that Republicans should just go along with whatever Obama wants. What I am saying is that there are plenty of issues where some type of compromise can be struck that will lead to positive outcomes. We seriously have to get passed this unbelievable partisanship.

Honestly? That could be a realistic comment if Obama was a a compromising kind of person and not trying to divide this country! He doesn't compromise at will, he may back down when he knows he's beaten. Compromise comes at the beginning, not when you are losing your base.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted Obama to succeed, but when I saw the inordinate direction he was taking and the indifference to the economic issues doe the first two years, I saw his administration as something different from compromising.

 

[Jackson]

Bill Bennett knows Newt personally and says he has problems. This gives me pause because I've considered Bennett a respectable man and usually trust his judgment.

I remember Newt as speaker and thought he did a good job. Problem is Bennett says he knows Newt personally and listed a few characteristics that bother me. I got a sense of some of them but just wrote it off as personality glitches when put on the spot. Bill however says they are part of Newts core. Ie self agrandizing and grandiose ideas beyond the ones we have heard about. He thinks as many here have said that if Newt wins the nomination the election will become about his past.

How did our party get relegated to such shitty choices? Obama should be so fucking easy to beat yet at every turn its all about the negativity of our party.

Perry can't debate to save his life. And yes I know were not electing a debater n chief but if he can't sell himself on the stage against Obama the public won't vote for him.

Pauls foreign policy is nuts.

Santorum is too extreme for this election cycle. The country doesn't want to go from far left to far right.

Newt can't outrun his past long enough to talk about current events.

Bachmann just turns me off personally.

Huntsman sounds centered but I honestly don't know anything about the man. And if I don't the public at large won't have a clue.

That leaves Romney, the KING FLIP FLOPPER.


WTF


I like Santorum and Bachmanns ideas but it won't fly in this election so WTF is a person to do? Sitting out or writing in a name is a sheer waste because it could lead to another Obama term. He has to go so I guess I just have to bite my tongue and vote for whoever gets the nomination. This is beginning to feel just like 08 and it straight pisses me off.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this post but I don't care. I don't have a job secure from this shitty economy and I desperately need change.

I think you're right. It is surprising how weak the field is.

It feels like 1992, when the Democrat field appeared weak because everyone thought Bush would triumph. Obama is very beatable. The Presidency is there for the taking for the Republicans.

We had the weakest choice in 2008. We just didn't know it wasn't weaker than the Democrats at the time. Obama wasn't vetted well.