Quote from: vooduchikn on December 07, 2011, 10:15:56 AM

Quote from: antoinebugleboy on December 07, 2011, 09:53:15 AM

For those of you espousing the "lesser of two evils" theory, I'm curious: if it were a race between Newt and Paul, who'd you vote for?

Ron Paul has a lot of great ideas and some kooky ones to go along with it.

The issue is not what ideas he has, but what he can actually make happen.  If you think for a second that Congress is going to just go along with even 1/2 of Ron Pauls ideas, then you are living in a fantasy world.

For those calling Newt a career politician, RP isn't far from that.

Newt is a realist, RP is still dreaming about the way things used to be and isn't going to let go of that. Times have changed (for the worse unfortunately) and RP just can't get passed that.

I am not saying that I do not like RP, or his ideas. 

If it came down to the above, I am going to vote for the guy that can beat the current resident and put a republican back in the WH.  RP doesn't have the numbers, the media, or the endorsements at this time.

Wait till after Iowa, we may see a change.

he wants thing to go back to how the founding fathers established them, how is that kooky?

I said some, don't put words in my mouth to satisfy your own ideals.

Go ask your average 18-21 year old off the street if they have ever read the constitution, what the 2nd or 4th amendments are. What the gold standard was....then you will understand where I am coming from when it comes to RP.  You will probably get the question "is there an App for that?"

The world our founding fathers based the constituion on is not todays world.  I am not saying that they didn't get it right, because they did.  Wanting to go back to that doesn't get votes.  Votes get you elected.

Quote from: antoinebugleboy on December 07, 2011, 09:53:15 AM

For those of you espousing the "lesser of two evils" theory, I'm curious: if it were a race between Newt and Paul, who'd you vote for?

Ron Paul has a lot of great ideas and some kooky ones to go along with it.

The issue is not what ideas he has, but what he can actually make happen.  If you think for a second that Congress is going to just go along with even 1/2 of Ron Pauls ideas, then you are living in a fantasy world.

For those calling Newt a career politician, RP isn't far from that.

Newt is a realist, RP is still dreaming about the way things used to be and isn't going to let go of that. Times have changed (for the worse unfortunately) and RP just can't get passed that.

I am not saying that I do not like RP, or his ideas. 

If it came down to the above, I am going to vote for the guy that can beat the current resident and put a republican back in the WH.  RP doesn't have the numbers, the media, or the endorsements at this time.

Wait till after Iowa, we may see a change.

You make a very good point about what a candidate says he'll do vs. what you believe he can and will do.

I know that Ron Paul will use his executive powers to their fullest to defend the Constitution. There are a LOT of things that happened under both the Bush and Obama administrations that would never, ever have happened under Ron Paul.

Paul is not a compromiser. I know that Paul can't change Congress, but he'll veto the shit out of any unconstitutional laws they try to pass, and they'll have to work harder to override that veto.

I think you may be a bit too dismissive of what a Ron Paul Presidency would mean for this country. Before you toss aside any consideration of voting for Paul, at least take a second look and think about what he promises and can and will do if he wins the Presidency. Then, if that vision is ultimately not inspiring enough for you to vote for him, then at least you will have made a fully conscious choice.

What I was trying to get at with my question is whether Newt Gingrich is to you in fact a lesser of two evils, or if he really represents what you believe.

Just like you said, it's not about what a candidate says he will do, or even what team he plays for, it's what he'll do and accomplish once he's in office. I don't see anything about Newt Gingrich that's going to make a big difference in the way this country is headed.

Quote from: vooduchikn on December 07, 2011, 10:15:56 AM

Quote from: antoinebugleboy on December 07, 2011, 09:53:15 AM

For those of you espousing the "lesser of two evils" theory, I'm curious: if it were a race between Newt and Paul, who'd you vote for?

Ron Paul has a lot of great ideas and some kooky ones to go along with it.

The issue is not what ideas he has, but what he can actually make happen.  If you think for a second that Congress is going to just go along with even 1/2 of Ron Pauls ideas, then you are living in a fantasy world.

For those calling Newt a career politician, RP isn't far from that.

Newt is a realist, RP is still dreaming about the way things used to be and isn't going to let go of that. Times have changed (for the worse unfortunately) and RP just can't get passed that.

I am not saying that I do not like RP, or his ideas. 

If it came down to the above, I am going to vote for the guy that can beat the current resident and put a republican back in the WH.  RP doesn't have the numbers, the media, or the endorsements at this time.

Wait till after Iowa, we may see a change.

You make a very good point about what a candidate says he'll do vs. what you believe he can and will do.

I know that Ron Paul will use his executive powers to their fullest to defend the Constitution. There are a LOT of things that happened under both the Bush and Obama administrations that would never, ever have happened under Ron Paul.

Paul is not a compromiser. I know that Paul can't change Congress, but he'll veto the **** out of any unconstitutional laws they try to pass, and they'll have to work harder to override that veto.

I think you may be a bit too dismissive of what a Ron Paul Presidency would mean for this country. Before you toss aside any consideration of voting for Paul, at least take a second look and think about what he promises and can and will do if he wins the Presidency. Then, if that vision is ultimately not inspiring enough for you to vote for him, then at least you will have made a fully conscious choice.

What I was trying to get at with my question is whether Newt Gingrich is to you in fact a lesser of two evils, or if he really represents what you believe.

Just like you said, it's not about what a candidate says he will do, or even what team he plays for, it's what he'll do and accomplish once he's in office. I don't see anything about Newt Gingrich that's going to make a big difference in the way this country is headed.

I have no doubt that RP would make a fine president, and he would veto the shit out of everything that comes to him, thus he would be about as effective as our current regime. Nothing would get done. The congress does not share his ideals, nor can anyone make them.  The only way to fix them is to vote them out.  They hold the true power and purse strings on this country. 

Bottom line is I am voting for the guy that I think has a chance at ousting the current resident so at least there is a CHANCE that we won't see 4 more years of the same ole crap.

When you're jumping out of a frying pan, try to avoid the fire:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/05/gingrich-praised-fdr-new-deal-in-95-06-books/

Gingrich praised FDR, New Deal in ’95, ’06 books

In two books, the man who calls President Barack Obama a “food-stamp president” praised the man whose administration created the first food stamp program.

Snubbing 16 other presidents including Ronald Reagan, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Franklin D. Roosevelt “probably the greatest president of the twentieth century” in his 1995 book To Renew America.

In a passage of the book in which Gingrich laid out examples of historical figures asking for God’s help for the nation, he praised Roosevelt for “openly appeal[ing] to the nation’s sense of faith and religion in summing the national will to the task” of defeating Nazi Germany.

“With the attention of the entire nation riveted upon him, President Roosevelt did a remarkable thing,” Gingrich wrote. “After telling the nation in one sentence that troops had landed, he said: ‘And so in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer.’”

More recently, in his 2006 book Rediscovering God in America, Gingrich lauded FDR’s national leadership and spiritual guidance during World War II.

“Many consider Franklin Roosevelt to be the father of modern liberalism, so it may surprise you that he was a man of deep religious conviction who unapologetically linked the preservation of our nation during World War II with the preservation of religion,” the former House Speaker wrote.

Gingrich also commended FDR for passing the New Deal, a program many conservatives consider to be the foundation for modern liberal policy. (RELATED: Democrats’ attacks on Romney indicate they would prefer Gingrich as nominee)

“The New Deal, as it came to be know, was comprised of a series of social and employment programs, which although failing to end the Depression, provided at the very least a necessary morale boost to thousands of previously unemployed workers,” he wrote.

Roosevelt, elected in 1932 as the country wrestled with the continuing effects of the Great Depression, served three full terms before dying in the early months of his fourth term. Under his administration, the Department of Agriculture instituted the Food Stamp Program in 1939. The program lasted until 1943, before being resurrected by President John F. Kennedy in 1961.

Yet in the same 1995 book in which he praised FDR, Gingrich called for “replacing the welfare state with an opportunity society,” a reform he called “the greatest moral imperative we face.” He laid out eight steps to do so:

Shifting from caretaking to caring
Volunteerism and spiritual renewal
Reasserting the values of American civilization
Emphasizing family and work
Creating tax incentives for work, investment, and entrepreneurship
Reestablishing savings and property ownership
Learning as the focus of education
Protection against violence and drugs
“When people tell me I am intense on this issue [of replacing the welfare state], I ask them to imagine that their children were the ones dying on the evening news and then tell me how intense they would be to save their own children’s lives,” he wrote. “That is how intense we should all be.”

When you're jumping out of a frying pan, try to avoid the fire:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/05/gingrich-praised-fdr-new-deal-in-95-06-books/

Quote

Gingrich praised FDR, New Deal in ’95, ’06 books

In two books, the man who calls President Barack Obama a “food-stamp president” praised the man whose administration created the first food stamp program.

Snubbing 16 other presidents including Ronald Reagan, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Franklin D. Roosevelt “probably the greatest president of the twentieth century” in his 1995 book To Renew America.

In a passage of the book in which Gingrich laid out examples of historical figures asking for God’s help for the nation, he praised Roosevelt for “openly appeal[ing] to the nation’s sense of faith and religion in summing the national will to the task” of defeating Nazi Germany.

“With the attention of the entire nation riveted upon him, President Roosevelt did a remarkable thing,” Gingrich wrote. “After telling the nation in one sentence that troops had landed, he said: ‘And so in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer.’”

More recently, in his 2006 book Rediscovering God in America, Gingrich lauded FDR’s national leadership and spiritual guidance during World War II.

“Many consider Franklin Roosevelt to be the father of modern liberalism, so it may surprise you that he was a man of deep religious conviction who unapologetically linked the preservation of our nation during World War II with the preservation of religion,” the former House Speaker wrote.

Gingrich also commended FDR for passing the New Deal, a program many conservatives consider to be the foundation for modern liberal policy. (RELATED: Democrats’ attacks on Romney indicate they would prefer Gingrich as nominee)

“The New Deal, as it came to be know, was comprised of a series of social and employment programs, which although failing to end the Depression, provided at the very least a necessary morale boost to thousands of previously unemployed workers,” he wrote.

Roosevelt, elected in 1932 as the country wrestled with the continuing effects of the Great Depression, served three full terms before dying in the early months of his fourth term. Under his administration, the Department of Agriculture instituted the Food Stamp Program in 1939. The program lasted until 1943, before being resurrected by President John F. Kennedy in 1961.

Yet in the same 1995 book in which he praised FDR, Gingrich called for “replacing the welfare state with an opportunity society,” a reform he called “the greatest moral imperative we face.” He laid out eight steps to do so:

Shifting from caretaking to caring
Volunteerism and spiritual renewal
Reasserting the values of American civilization
Emphasizing family and work
Creating tax incentives for work, investment, and entrepreneurship
Reestablishing savings and property ownership
Learning as the focus of education
Protection against violence and drugs
“When people tell me I am intense on this issue [of replacing the welfare state], I ask them to imagine that their children were the ones dying on the evening news and then tell me how intense they would be to save their own children’s lives,” he wrote. “That is how intense we should all be.”

And your point?

If your sole aim is to vote for "anyone but Obama", well, I guess Newt isn't Obama.

But I do not believe Newt will steer the country toward a better destination, or even one that's significantly different.

I guess at this point we just have to be satisfied with having stated our opinions and let it go at that.

The dilema comes into play of if you don't vote for Gingrich, and you vote for a less popular candidate like Ron Paul, then Obama gets the majority vote because the Pubs are divided amongst who they want for a president.

And that can't happen. Obama cannot get re-elected for reasons we have already discussed.

And this is where one must take one for the team, REGARDLESS of how you feel (note I have never stated who I would vote for) and send the current residents to the unemployment lines that they have perpetuated.  We cannot survive another 4 years.

And this is where one must take one for the team, REGARDLESS of how you feel (note I have never stated who I would vote for) and send the current residents to the unemployment lines that they have perpetuated.  We cannot survive another 4 years.

(I understand that I have a certain way of writing concisely and to the point that comes across as combative at times, but I hope you take my replies for what they are, friendly conversation. I think we can have a heated conversation and still walk away respecting and maybe even liking each other. Not everyone seems to feel this way.)

I'd say that before you ask someone to take one for the team, you might want to check that they're wearing the same uniform. (Or if they even think this is a team sport.) I would be just as unhappy, or even unhappier, under a Newt Presidency, as I would under the current administration, albeit for (slightly) different reasons.

Neither Newt nor Obama will end the drug war.

Neither Newt nor Obama will take the hard, principled steps necessary to bring our national debt under control.

Neither Newt nor Obama will fight Congress' continuing downward spiral toward corruption and cronyism.

Neither Newt nor Obama will be anything but business as usual.

If you don't think we're going to survive another 4 years of Obama, what makes you think we'll survive 4 years under Newt, or any other mainstream Republican contender? I mean, specifically, what do you believe Obama will do with a second term and what will the effects be, and what will the m.s. Republican do differently, and what will be the effects of that?

Personally, I feel that a deadlocked Federal government is a HUGE improvement over continued and increasingly ham-fisted meddling. I'll vote for anyone who promises that the government won't "get anything done" for the next four years.

Quote from: vooduchikn on December 07, 2011, 01:17:18 PM

And this is where one must take one for the team, REGARDLESS of how you feel (note I have never stated who I would vote for) and send the current residents to the unemployment lines that they have perpetuated.  We cannot survive another 4 years.

(I understand that I have a certain way of writing concisely and to the point that comes across as combative at times, but I hope you take my replies for what they are, friendly conversation. I think we can have a heated conversation and still walk away respecting and maybe even liking each other. Not everyone seems to feel this way.)

I'd say that before you ask someone to take one for the team, you might want to check that they're wearing the same uniform. (Or if they even think this is a team sport.) I would be just as unhappy, or even unhappier, under a Newt Presidency, as I would under the current administration, albeit for (slightly) different reasons.

Neither Newt nor Obama will end the drug war.

Neither Newt nor Obama will take the hard, principled steps necessary to bring our national debt under control.

Neither Newt nor Obama will fight Congress' continuing downward spiral toward corruption and cronyism.

Neither Newt nor Obama will be anything but business as usual.

If you don't think we're going to survive another 4 years of Obama, what makes you think we'll survive 4 years under Newt, or any other mainstream Republican contender? I mean, specifically, what do you believe Obama will do with a second term and what will the effects be, and what will the m.s. Republican do differently, and what will be the effects of that?

Okay, and my question is how will RP get any of the above done?  Before you answer, goodle Ron Paul and earmarks.....

The floor is yours.

One positive about RP is that he would likely do away with a number of the executive orders that have been kicking around for so long.  Not that the next guy couldn't dust them off and sign them again, but at least RP's successor wouldn't have the luxury of just continuing the existing un-Constitutional BS with the excuse that "that's how it was when I got here, and it seems to be working!"  Honestly, I support pretty much everything RP wants to do domestically; it's his foreign policy that scares the crap out of me.  I think we'd suffer a major terror attack shortly after his inauguration, since the Moose-limb extremists would see any drawdown as a sign that the "paper tiger" is turning tail and running. 

Then again, is terrorism really that big a deal?  I mean honestly, heart disease kills something like 2500 people per day, which is just shy of a 9/11 every single day.  Nobody seems that concerned about heart disease, judging by sales of the McRib, so maybe I should put the foreign policy/war on terror thing on a lower priority shelf and vote Ron Paul.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2814489/posts

Glenn Beck Smears Ron Paul With Half-Truths About Paul's Earmarks.
11/30/2011 | PhilipFreneau
Posted on Wed Nov 30 2011 18:52:31 GMT-1000 (Hawaiian Standard Time) by PhilipFreneau

Glenn Beck Smears Ron Paul With Half-Truths About Paul's Earmarks.

Today on his radio show Glenn Beck and his staff declared that Ron Paul is the "earmark king", and labeled Paul a hypocrit. Beck correctly stated that Paul adds many earmarks to spending bills, and then votes against the spending bills. What Beck left out (either by deceit or by ignorance) is that earmarks do not increase the size of a budget. The money allocated for a budget is set by the Appropriations Committee prior to any allocation or earmark. All money not allocated or earmarked is not deleted from the budget, but rather is turned over the the executive branch to spend as it sees fit.

According to Wikipedia [re. Earmark], "Scott Frisch and Sean Kelly point out that directing money to particular purposes is a core constitutional function of Congress. If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch; there is no guarantee that the allocation made by executive agencies will be superior to Congress's. Presidents and executive officials can use the allocation of spending to reward friends and punish enemies." They also warned the "Tea Party's Anti-Earmark Crusade Gives More Power to President Obama".

Those are important points. Unallocated money has no transparency, and therefore can be used by the President to reward friends and punish enemies, without public scrutiny. Therefore, by earmarking as much as he can, Ron Paul is increasing the transparency of government spending. Until the Congress passes a law that requires all unallocated money to be deleted from the budget and returned to the Treasury, Congressman Paul is doing all he can do to increase the transparency of federal expenditures.

Glenn Beck is constantly preaching to us about the importance of (honorable) character. Maybe Beck should practice what he preaches.

So Ron Paul wants every penny accounted for, rather than left to discretion. He votes to attach a purpose and limit to the money being voted on, and then votes against spending the money.

Your serve.

EDIT: Problem solved.  All things in moderation...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2814489/posts

Quote

Glenn Beck Smears Ron Paul With Half-Truths About Paul's Earmarks.
11/30/2011 | PhilipFreneau
Posted on Wed Nov 30 2011 18:52:31 GMT-1000 (Hawaiian Standard Time) by PhilipFreneau

Glenn Beck Smears Ron Paul With Half-Truths About Paul's Earmarks.

Today on his radio show Glenn Beck and his staff declared that Ron Paul is the "earmark king", and labeled Paul a hypocrit. Beck correctly stated that Paul adds many earmarks to spending bills, and then votes against the spending bills. What Beck left out (either by deceit or by ignorance) is that earmarks do not increase the size of a budget. The money allocated for a budget is set by the Appropriations Committee prior to any allocation or earmark. All money not allocated or earmarked is not deleted from the budget, but rather is turned over the the executive branch to spend as it sees fit.

According to Wikipedia [re. Earmark], "Scott Frisch and Sean Kelly point out that directing money to particular purposes is a core constitutional function of Congress. If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch; there is no guarantee that the allocation made by executive agencies will be superior to Congress's. Presidents and executive officials can use the allocation of spending to reward friends and punish enemies." They also warned the "Tea Party's Anti-Earmark Crusade Gives More Power to President Obama".

Those are important points. Unallocated money has no transparency, and therefore can be used by the President to reward friends and punish enemies, without public scrutiny. Therefore, by earmarking as much as he can, Ron Paul is increasing the transparency of government spending. Until the Congress passes a law that requires all unallocated money to be deleted from the budget and returned to the Treasury, Congressman Paul is doing all he can do to increase the transparency of federal expenditures.

Glenn Beck is constantly preaching to us about the importance of (honorable) character. Maybe Beck should practice what he preaches.

So Ron Paul wants every penny accounted for, rather than left to discretion. He votes to attach a purpose and limit to the money being voted on, and then votes against spending the money.

Your serve.

If that is the way you see it, I highly disagree.  I am going to keep this friendly and just let you go on with your "RON PAUL or BUST' blinders on and leave you to your disapointment next November. I would say that you could probably vote for him again the election cycle after next (if there is one), but he will be probably be dead, guys pushing 77 years old. This is pretty much his last shot age wise.


You can talk all you want about what team, whos team, what colors, insert nifty anectdote here, but the bottom line is the best team to vote for is the team that has the best chance of beating the encumbent.  Any other ballot might as well be @sswipe, and should be used as such.

Racial connotations are not going to be tolerated. Even in fun and jest.   It is bad enough that they call anyone who disagrees with the current admin racist to begin with.  DO NOT post any comments like the ones deleted.  It is not in the good spirit of this forum.  This thread has a good discussion going, don't make me lock and delete it!

Racial connotations are not going to be tolerated. Even in fun and jest.   It is bad enough that they call anyone who disagrees with the current admin racist to begin with.  DO NOT post any comments like the ones deleted.  It is not in the good spirit of this forum.  This thread has a good discussion going, don't make me lock and delete it!

Thanks, Heavies. 

You can talk all you want about what team, whos team, what colors, insert nifty anectdote here, but the bottom line is the best team to vote for is the team that has the best chance of beating the encumbent.  Any other ballot might as well be @sswipe, and should be used as such.

Well, I hope they make my ballot out of soft and absorbent material, then.

if my vote doesn't count cause it doesn't ring true with a party well then i'll have it not count and keep on voting for the man i want. That's the problem with out party system now, we no longer vote on the issues we vote on the party and it's just plain stupid.