Homer_Rice Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='628493' date='Jan 30 2008, 04:51 PM']TY Homer....my thoughts exactly just stated in a more eloquent manner than I have demonstrated here...I just don't take kindly to be addressed in a condescending manner like I have been in this thread.[/quote] Clearly you haven't seen all of my posts, as I can be a sarcastic, condescending asshole with the best of 'em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='628496' date='Jan 30 2008, 05:54 PM']wtf? thats directly conflicting isnt it?[/quote] Yes it is, but if you click total delegate count on the page you brought up it says close to the same thing as my link..... The questions remains then..are you going to vote Paul on Feb 8th if Clinton and Obama are neck and neck? [quote name='Homer_Rice' post='628505' date='Jan 30 2008, 06:02 PM'] Clearly you haven't seen all of my posts, as I can be a sarcastic, condescending asshole with the best of 'em![/quote] lol But most of them have deserved it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='628506' date='Jan 30 2008, 05:03 PM']Yes it is, but if you click total delegate count on the page you brought up it says close to the same thing as my link..... The questions remains then..are you going to vote Paul on Feb 8th if Clinton and Obama are neck and neck? lol But most of them have deserved it! [/quote] Ask me closer to Feb 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='628508' date='Jan 30 2008, 06:05 PM']Ask me closer to Feb 8.[/quote] Now that is an answer I can deal with.......and rightfully so. I understand where you are coming from with voting for the candidate that fits your interests and ideals the best, but sometimes in crunch time it is better to cut your losses. At least that is the way I feel. Like I said before, I am wide open right now...I have serious issues with every candidate that is running right now......Unfortunately, I probably would have voted for Edwards, but that point is moot now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LudwigVan Kubrick Posted January 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='628506' date='Jan 30 2008, 05:03 PM']lol But most of them have deserved it! [/quote] Just as you deserved it. I'm not going to go back through this thread, but it was one stupid, inaccurate comment after another with you. If you jump into a political discussion with nothing but 10 second soundbytes on the issues and candidates that your TV happen to tell you the last time you were paying attention enough to remember it.... then yeah, I'm playing the sheeple card because THE SHOE FITS. Don't worry though, you are in the majority. If the American public picks a good president.... ....it'll be by accident. Because people are f'n stupid. And the ones that aren't stupid, don't give a shit about politics, so they lazily let the media provide their opinions and choices for them. Then they come here and try to peddle that shit as fact. Then I have to point out the sheeple behavior. Have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [quote name='LudwigVan Kubrick' post='628563' date='Jan 30 2008, 08:02 PM']Just as you deserved it. I'm not going to go back through this thread, but it was one stupid, inaccurate comment after another with you. If you jump into a political discussion with nothing but 10 second soundbytes on the issues and candidates that your TV happen to tell you the last time you were paying attention enough to remember it.... then yeah, I'm playing the sheeple card because THE SHOE FITS. Don't worry though, you are in the majority. If the American public picks a good president.... ....it'll be by accident. Because people are f'n stupid. And the ones that aren't stupid, don't give a shit about politics, so they lazily let the media provide their opinions and choices for them. Then they come here and try to peddle that shit as fact. Then I have to point out the sheeple behavior. Have a nice day.[/quote] Bullshit I deserved....don't you have some legos to go play with? Children should be seen and not heard....get red faced and call people names somewhere else.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SINcinnati513 Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Anyone watch the debate tonight? I believe that was the worst one yet. Paul got fucked over big time. CNN is officially worse than Faux News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steggyD Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='628400' date='Jan 30 2008, 02:28 PM']...If in the General Election Obama is the only canidate left that will bring the troops home then I will vote for Obama...[/quote] Are you so sure about this? I've read and heard differently about Obama, such as getting troops out of Iraq but just placing them in other parts of the world. Only Paul wants all our troops back home. We don't need to support the gas line and/or the opium drug line. Some quotes, and I'm sure there are more out there. • "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland." • "I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. ... We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -– it is political and economic. As president, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion." Honestly, I don't much like Obama's politics. He has a federal government program for everything, and somehow money for every one of them. Also, BJ's favorite, he's a strong supporter of Israel ... [quote]Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='628500' date='Jan 30 2008, 04:58 PM']If you (as a war supporter, so I have to ask if your being honest with yourself) dont think the War was a Major reason they lost I dont know that to tell you. Im pretty sure I said the canidate I want to win does need my help to win. [/quote] first of all, quit taking MOST of what i say, and then changing a few words to fit what you counter with... Where did i say that: "a major reason they lost" was not a correct statement? I said this exactly so quote me correctly b/c the point you are making is not the same point as i am making: [i]Rep's lost b/c they let spending control them, along w/ the immigration debate splitting the party into two... the iraq war certainly ddint' help b/c it ensured no democrat would switch over and vote republican so it definately effected the election, [b]but it was far from the only reason, and imo not even the biggest reason...[/b] [/i] The only thing close to what you said that i said i bolded.. but nowhere did i say that the iraq war was not a major reason... making sure that a whole fucking party will automatially dismiss you is a big deal... But the major difference from 2004 to 2006 is that the Republican party split into two.. people turned on bush after defending him through the 2004 election because we realized that he was spending more than clinton... Then the immigration debate split the party into two... The immigration debate is what demoralized republicans imo, and the most important reason rep's lost.... the iraq war was true in 2004, when republicans won... Now secondly, what the hell do you mean with your last statement? again, did i say that? I am saying that you are acting like Obama doesn't need your help to beat Clinton, so instead you would rather use your vote on ron paul... isn't that true? Didn't you say: [i]I will vote for Paul in the primaies, even though Im not on board with his ecnomic ideals (but understand most would never pass in congress) based in principle, [b]because he would need my vote much more than Obama would[/b].[/i] So this is where i am getting my statement that: [i]Obama doesn't need your help to win[/i]. I should have said that you feel obama doesn't need it as much as paul... Well, i guess you are technically right, b/c Paul needs Jesus to come down and endorse him himself, and obama just needs people like you to support him AND then help him beat Clinton... Also an FYI about the part you ignored about what polls Obama is winning... you can find the answer [url="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/charts/2008_election_primaries/democratic_primaries_chart.html"]here[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [url="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bill-we-just-ha.html"]click here[/url] [i]Bill: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming[/i] personally, i think that technology is the key to cutting back emitions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [quote name='bengalrick' post='628669' date='Jan 31 2008, 09:45 AM']first of all, quit taking MOST of what i say, and then changing a few words to fit what you counter with... Where did i say that: "a major reason they lost" was not a correct statement? I said this exactly so quote me correctly b/c the point you are making is not the same point as i am making: [i]Rep's lost b/c they let spending control them, along w/ the immigration debate splitting the party into two... the iraq war certainly ddint' help b/c it ensured no democrat would switch over and vote republican so it definately effected the election, [b]but it was far from the only reason, and imo not even the biggest reason...[/b] [/i] The only thing close to what you said that i said i bolded.. but nowhere did i say that the iraq war was not a major reason... making sure that a whole fucking party will automatially dismiss you is a big deal... But the major difference from 2004 to 2006 is that the Republican party split into two.. people turned on bush after defending him through the 2004 election because we realized that he was spending more than clinton... Then the immigration debate split the party into two... The immigration debate is what demoralized republicans imo, and the most important reason rep's lost.... the iraq war was true in 2004, when republicans won... Now secondly, what the hell do you mean with your last statement? again, did i say that? I am saying that you are acting like Obama doesn't need your help to beat Clinton, so instead you would rather use your vote on ron paul... isn't that true? Didn't you say: [i]I will vote for Paul in the primaies, even though Im not on board with his ecnomic ideals (but understand most would never pass in congress) based in principle, [b]because he would need my vote much more than Obama would[/b].[/i] So this is where i am getting my statement that: [i]Obama doesn't need your help to win[/i]. I should have said that you feel obama doesn't need it as much as paul... Well, i guess you are technically right, b/c Paul needs Jesus to come down and endorse him himself, and obama just needs people like you to support him AND then help him beat Clinton... Also an FYI about the part you ignored about what polls Obama is winning... you can find the answer [url="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/charts/2008_election_primaries/democratic_primaries_chart.html"]here[/url][/quote] I deleted your double post. Were arguing semantics here, a major reason vs the major reason. Suffice to say I think it was THE major reason and we will just have to agree to disagree on that. 2ndly when I clicked the CNN link I had provided earlier it had obama leading, it hadnt been updated thus I wasnt up to date in my info and thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='628673' date='Jan 31 2008, 10:04 AM']I deleted your double post. Were arguing semantics here, a major reason vs the major reason. Suffice to say I think it was THE major reason and we will just have to agree to disagree on that. 2ndly when I clicked the CNN link I had provided earlier it had obama leading, it hadnt been updated thus I wasnt up to date in my info and thinking.[/quote] go with real clear politics... it averages all the major polls together... that is the polls that i tend to watch at least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hocuspocus Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [quote name='LudwigVan Kubrick' post='628563' date='Jan 30 2008, 07:02 PM']Just as you deserved it. I'm not going to go back through this thread, but it was one stupid, inaccurate comment after another with you. If you jump into a political discussion with nothing but 10 second soundbytes on the issues and candidates that your TV happen to tell you the last time you were paying attention enough to remember it.... then yeah, I'm playing the sheeple card because THE SHOE FITS. Don't worry though, you are in the majority. If the American public picks a good president.... ....it'll be by accident. Because people are f'n stupid. And the ones that aren't stupid, don't give a shit about politics, so they lazily let the media provide their opinions and choices for them. Then they come here and try to peddle that shit as fact. Then I have to point out the sheeple behavior. Have a nice day.[/quote] Ludwig - I'm fairly new to the community here. I've been reading the posts and noticed the points in your signature section. I'm curious if you've read or like Russell Kirk? I'm admittedly conservative before any party and not exactly in agreement with Ron Paul on certain items yet if I may I wanted to make a suggestion to explore Kirk a little. As to some of the comments back and forth on the right view and voting on beliefs related to conservatism or progressive thinking (as Hillary now refers to modern liberalism) it seems evident that intellectual and philosophical AMERICAN conservatism is very misunderstood and misrepresented today. I'd attribute this unfortunately to the years of the socialization of our country where many view the government as their parent and like children expect their every need to be fulfilled. It has always an uphill battle for real conservative thought to come through and it is not something that rightfully can be put in one exact place or called an idealogy because it is not since the ideologue thinks of politics (as it seems you may) a a revolutionary instrument for transformation of society or even human nature and as I've seen in the merciless postings here idealogues always seem to pursue in a merciless fashion. Conservatives see the world outside of idealogy and politics as the art of the possible (Reagan?) he thinks and sees politics and thus government not as his master but rather there to perserve order, justice, and freedom while not so much picking the health care plan he should use. It is a shame today that everyone is an idealogue and not willing to comprimise, their politics becomes a religion rather than what, say, conservatism has always been which is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the world. Conservatism is not dogmatic as Ron Paullfollwers seem to make it - it is true that a conservative may only be defined as a person who thinks himself such. Conservatism in America has been through many phases (Ron Paul not included) - from the libertarian bent of Hayek and Nock then to Kirk et al then Meyer and Buckley... which of course all helped lead to Goldwater and the age of Reagan. Not sure where that leaves us and not so confident that Ron Paul is exactly best equipped to re-ignite the mantel of American Conservatism. Regardless of the good ideas and thoughtfulness of Paul has demonstrated at times, it seems his 'quack' factor (perception is reality) would do more harm to bringing the conservative ideals of your signature list back to the fore. I'd say the same of a McCain presidency for different reasons. Looking forward to the discussion. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 welcome to the board and post often... we can't have enough good conservative voices... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hocuspocus Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [quote name='bengalrick' post='628750' date='Jan 31 2008, 02:49 PM']welcome to the board and post often... we can't have enough good conservative voices...[/quote] Thanks and looking forward to it. Should be tons o fun. As a conservative you just know I love kicking old people, yelling at homeless to get jobs, taking food right from children's mouths, running over the environment with my SUV, and generally doing things that evil uncaring people do. Evil, uncaring and unfeeling people like me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [quote name='hocuspocus' post='628780' date='Jan 31 2008, 04:03 PM']Thanks and looking forward to it. Should be tons o fun. As a conservative you just know I love kicking old people, yelling at homeless to get jobs, taking food right from children's mouths, running over the environment with my SUV, and generally doing things that evil uncaring people do. Evil, uncaring and unfeeling people like me![/quote] your not only a conservative, your an EVIL conservative, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [quote name='hocuspocus' post='628780' date='Jan 31 2008, 04:03 PM']Thanks and looking forward to it. Should be tons o fun. As a conservative you just know I love kicking old people, yelling at homeless to get jobs, taking food right from children's mouths, running over the environment with my SUV, and generally doing things that evil uncaring people do. Evil, uncaring and unfeeling people like me![/quote] No ninja, duley noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LudwigVan Kubrick Posted February 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 [quote name='hocuspocus' post='628703' date='Jan 31 2008, 12:08 PM']Ludwig - I'm fairly new to the community here. I've been reading the posts and noticed the points in your signature section. I'm curious if you've read or like Russell Kirk? I'm admittedly conservative before any party and not exactly in agreement with Ron Paul on certain items yet if I may I wanted to make a suggestion to explore Kirk a little. As to some of the comments back and forth on the right view and voting on beliefs related to conservatism or progressive thinking (as Hillary now refers to modern liberalism) it seems evident that intellectual and philosophical AMERICAN conservatism is very misunderstood and misrepresented today. I'd attribute this unfortunately to the years of the socialization of our country where many view the government as their parent and like children expect their every need to be fulfilled. It has always an uphill battle for real conservative thought to come through and it is not something that rightfully can be put in one exact place or called an idealogy because it is not since the ideologue thinks of politics (as it seems you may) a a revolutionary instrument for transformation of society or even human nature and as I've seen in the merciless postings here idealogues always seem to pursue in a merciless fashion. Conservatives see the world outside of idealogy and politics as the art of the possible (Reagan?) he thinks and sees politics and thus government not as his master but rather there to perserve order, justice, and freedom while not so much picking the health care plan he should use. It is a shame today that everyone is an idealogue and not willing to comprimise, their politics becomes a religion rather than what, say, conservatism has always been which is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the world. Conservatism is not dogmatic as Ron Paullfollwers seem to make it - it is true that a conservative may only be defined as a person who thinks himself such. Conservatism in America has been through many phases (Ron Paul not included) - from the libertarian bent of Hayek and Nock then to Kirk et al then Meyer and Buckley... which of course all helped lead to Goldwater and the age of Reagan. Not sure where that leaves us and not so confident that Ron Paul is exactly best equipped to re-ignite the mantel of American Conservatism. Regardless of the good ideas and thoughtfulness of Paul has demonstrated at times, it seems his 'quack' factor (perception is reality) would do more harm to bringing the conservative ideals of your signature list back to the fore. I'd say the same of a McCain presidency for different reasons. Looking forward to the discussion. Regards[/quote] Read a bit about Kirk but I am confused as to his Libertarian and Neo-Con ties. They seem like polar opposites so I am wondering if he had some kind of life changing event? Thank you for the recommendation though, as I will be delving deeper now. Curious fellow from what I have found so far. Here's the cliff notes for anyone else interested: [b] Kirk developed six "canons" of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows: 1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law; 2. An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence; 3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions; 4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked; 5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and 6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.[/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk[/url] As far the "kookiness" of Paul... Consider the medium (mainstream media). They can paint whatever picture they want to paint, and they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hocuspocus Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 [quote name='LudwigVan Kubrick' post='629157' date='Feb 1 2008, 05:06 PM']Read a bit about Kirk but I am confused as to his Libertarian and Neo-Con ties. They seem like polar opposites so I am wondering if he had some kind of life changing event? Thank you for the recommendation though, as I will be delving deeper now. Curious fellow from what I have found so far. Here's the cliff notes for anyone else interested: [b] Kirk developed six "canons" of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows: 1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law; 2. An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence; 3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions; 4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked; 5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and 6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.[/b] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk[/url] As far the "kookiness" of Paul... Consider the medium (mainstream media). They can paint whatever picture they want to paint, and they do.[/quote] Russello does not exactly do justice - try his foundation website [url="http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.html"]http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.html[/url] and specifically it is ten principles so for some reason Russello chose to leave four out - I've seen the book he wrote and it seems interesting but I think some interpretation there. The Ten are here - [url="http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html"]http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html[/url] As to Kirk as a Neo-Con - no way. This is why I suggested him. He strongly believed the US if it followed conservative principle should never get involved in foreign country affairs - especially nation building. Kirk would have opposed the action in Iraq and most likely Afghanistan. He got a bad rap by some comments he made but if you read his stuff and get to know the battles he had you will quickly learn his was a true grass roots conservatism like the founding fathers. He even lived an agrarian life in MI and as fairly secluded. Supporting his family on his own and staying local. in his book Politics of Prudence he takes a whole chapter to denounce the idea that he is a Neo. In fact he hated the label and he struggled with it until his death. He agreed with some of the ideals (as they were conservatives after all) and not others. The one deviation on foreign affairs was he felt they played a large role in the collapse of the Soviet Union which he saw (rightfully) as a worthy divergence from strict conservatism. I think he saw any movement that lifted basic conservatism as good and he worked with them and debated them and in his mind that made it all that much stronger. so in the end it was easy for people to look at this and just call the whole of Kirk a neo-con - not true!! Ron Paul had a great interview with Glenn Beck show - I have to say I do agree with him 100% on fiscal matters. I'm a bit squeamish on the foreign policy still as he just sounds quacky to my ear (I'm not one to be duped by the media by the way and resent the comment just ever so slightly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='628411' date='Jan 30 2008, 02:51 PM']But that isnt what's happening is it? Obama is looking like he has a very good shot at winning, so if on the right I vote for Paul, Im still standing my by convinctions (which is never a wasted vote) and still get Obama on the left and if Paul wins more votes then it helps his cause on the right (because even if he doesnt win his message gets heard, by gaining a large percentage) and remember there is no "lose lose lose" as bengalrick tried to convey its about taking enough primamry votes. If the leaders keep changing and paul keeps taking 2nd, he could stand a good chance of winning it. So from a get the hell out of Iraq and stop funding the war machine Paul vs Obama is the only choice. Its about the future of this country. Also if Paul wins enough of a percentage it forces the other canidates to take a look at why and perhaps adopt some of his ideals, and that is NEVER a waste of a vote![/quote] [quote name='Jamie_B' post='628508' date='Jan 30 2008, 05:05 PM']Ask me closer to Feb 8.[/quote] Now that Clinton leads Obama after Super Tuesday, and it looks like Obama needs your vote are you going to vote on principle or logic Jamie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 [quote name='hocuspocus' post='628703' date='Jan 31 2008, 12:08 PM']As to some of the comments back and forth on the right view and voting on beliefs related to conservatism or progressive thinking (as Hillary now refers to modern liberalism) it seems evident that intellectual and philosophical AMERICAN conservatism is very misunderstood and misrepresented today. I'd attribute this unfortunately to the years of the socialization of our country where many view the government as their parent and like children expect their every need to be fulfilled. It has always an uphill battle for real conservative thought to come through and it is not something that rightfully can be put in one exact place or called an idealogy because it is not since the ideologue thinks of politics (as it seems you may) a a revolutionary instrument for transformation of society or even human nature and as I've seen in the merciless postings here idealogues always seem to pursue in a merciless fashion. Conservatives see the world outside of idealogy and politics as the art of the possible (Reagan?) he thinks and sees politics and thus government not as his master but rather there to perserve order, justice, and freedom while not so much picking the health care plan he should use. It is a shame today that everyone is an idealogue and not willing to comprimise, their politics becomes a religion rather than what, say, conservatism has always been which is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the world. Conservatism is not dogmatic as Ron Paullfollwers seem to make it - it is true that a conservative may only be defined as a person who thinks himself such. Conservatism in America has been through many phases (Ron Paul not included) - from the libertarian bent of Hayek and Nock then to Kirk et al then Meyer and Buckley... which of course all helped lead to Goldwater and the age of Reagan. Not sure where that leaves us and not so confident that Ron Paul is exactly best equipped to re-ignite the mantel of American Conservatism. Regardless of the good ideas and thoughtfulness of Paul has demonstrated at times, it seems his 'quack' factor (perception is reality) would do more harm to bringing the conservative ideals of your signature list back to the fore. I'd say the same of a McCain presidency for different reasons. Looking forward to the discussion.[/quote] "intellectual and philosophical AMERICAN conservatism" rarely exists in practice, only in chalkboard concepts. im assuming your views are most closely defined as libertarian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 [quote name='steggyD' post='628628' date='Jan 30 2008, 11:48 PM']Are you so sure about this? I've read and heard differently about Obama, such as getting troops out of Iraq but just placing them in other parts of the world. Only Paul wants all our troops back home. We don't need to support the gas line and/or the opium drug line. Some quotes, and I'm sure there are more out there. • "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland." • "I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. ... We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -– it is political and economic. As president, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion." Honestly, I don't much like Obama's politics. He has a federal government program for everything, and somehow money for every one of them. Also, BJ's favorite, he's a strong supporter of Israel ...[/quote]obama has never said he would bring all of our troops abroad home, he has only stated that he would get us out of iraq and that in doing so our military personnel and civilian contractors abroad would be drastically reduced. i am sure that he would add needed forces to the mission in afghanistan but the few brigades sent there to fight a justified battle pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of americans in iraq playing whack a mole with people who dont want change and openly despise us. i dont think jamie has any delusions of obama bringing our troops in korea home or anything of that ilk, but ill leave that for him to clarify. obama is not a perfect candidate and is assuredly filled with many flaws just like all of the others, but he is the only electable chance weve got at turning this country around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='630490' date='Feb 6 2008, 06:21 AM']Now that Clinton leads Obama after Super Tuesday, and it looks like Obama needs your vote are you going to vote on principle or logic Jamie?[/quote] Hillary cant win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 [quote name='Nati Ice' post='630497' date='Feb 6 2008, 08:04 AM']obama has never said he would bring all of our troops abroad home, he has only stated that he would get us out of iraq and that in doing so our military personnel and civilian contractors abroad would be drastically reduced. i am sure that he would add needed forces to the mission in afghanistan but the few brigades sent there to fight a justified battle pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of americans in iraq playing whack a mole with people who dont want change and openly despise us. [color="#FF0000"] i dont think jamie has any delusions of obama bringing our troops in korea home or anything of that ilk, but ill leave that for him to clarify.[/color] obama is not a perfect candidate and is assuredly filled with many flaws just like all of the others, but he is the best electable chance weve got had turning this country around in all facets of the game.[/quote] correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LudwigVan Kubrick Posted February 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='630490' date='Feb 6 2008, 06:21 AM']Now that Clinton leads Obama after Super Tuesday, and it looks like Obama needs your vote are you going to vote on principle or logic Jamie?[/quote] Tell me the difference between Obama's Welfare State plan and Hillary's Welfare State plan. Tell me the difference between Obama's vague, never-gonna-happen plan for troop withdrawal, and Hillary's. I guess if you just say words like "change" enough time, people believe it. Then you look at what change they have in mind. Well, some of us look anyway. I'll leave you to your 10 second soundbytes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.