1st debate

[Mister Bushice]

1. I'd think, living in Mexifornia, you'd want the illegal flood to end.
McCain or Obama gonna git'er done for ya? bwaaaa ...
Ron Paul would do his DAMN BEST to get that done for ya.
High priority ... REALLY.

Do his damn best? Great. Is that like a retard olympics best, or like a "gee, I'm in the minority of the ones who want this done so - I tried - sorry.
Try and recall he'd be dealing with a LOT of democrats who want to give illegals a free pass. They'd kill any legislation that did that.

2. Our monetary system.
Have you heard Ron Paul speak to this issue?
Prolly his favorite.
If you think B.O. or J. McLame are gonna come anywhere close to dealing correctly with this you are one naive puppy.

This will NEVER be up to one person, as evidenced by what happened today. Bush had his shit shot out from under him. We're headed for a major overhaul as soon as this shithead in charge is gone anyway.

3. Foreign policy.
Strong military, non-intervention, trade and dialogue.
SAVE money.
You know, like the Constitution outlines it for us.
The Ron Paul campaign had HUGE financial support from the military.
Think about that as the talking head tell you that his approach is fucked.

I think Mccain would do just as well in this area. Obama not so much.

4. Government reform.
McCain slaps Palin on the ticket and all of a sudden he's the reformer.
bwaaaa hahaha
Sheeple are funnay.

Government reform? by ONE guy?

What a dreamer.

So, no. You get a legit third party in here to do the reforming, WITH representation in congress, and sweep the Pappy O'Daniels right out the door, then I'll pay attention and have hope that things might change.

One man is piss in a monsoon, even IF he is president without a wide constituency and some congressional power backing him up.

[poptart]

To summarize your responses to the four critical issues our country is facing, you give three throw up your arms and declare, "one man can't do anythings," and one "McCain is better on foreign policy."

Fascinating ... if not downright comical.

The prez has a LOT of pull, Bushice.
Have you noticed how much folks hate GW?
Think there'd be that venom if the guy in the office isn't capable of yanking a LOT of shit all over the place?

It defies all logic to PREFER a guy who's track record speaks that he is NOT looking out for mr u.s. citizen, over the guy who's track record shows that he UNDOUBTEDLY IS looking out for mr u.s. citizen.

But oh well ...


Regarding McCain being better on foreign policy, I assume you want an expansion of the nebulous 'war on terror' that we are engaged in?

That IS what we can fully expect if he is elected.

Myself, not IN.

[Dinsdale]

The definition of insanity -- repeating the same mistake over and over, expecting a different result each time.

"Well, one guy can't stand up for me by himself, so I'm not going to support him, and I'll support someone who isn't looking out for my best interest because he can get support from Congress to not look out for me."


That isn't "insanity" -- it's sheer, utter stupidity. :bigshocker: whose keyboard it came from, eh?


"Since one guy can't bring about positive change, I'll support the same-old."



Every journey begins with a step, tards.

Your support of socialism is shocking, saddening, and makes me lose much respect for the People of this once-great, but now spineless nation.

[Cuda]

The definition of insanity -- repeating the same mistake over and over, expecting a different result each time.

that's more like "idiocy"

insanity would be repeating the same mistake over & over and declaring* that the results are different each time












*or in the case of congress, deeming the results to be different

[Mister Bushice]

The prez has a LOT of pull, Bushice.
Have you noticed how much folks hate GW?

The Pres has a lot of pull when he has enough of a majority in congress that support him. Bush has managed that over most of his tenure with either a majority or close enough to a majority - enough to kill bills he doesn't want in committee, and pass along the ones he does. And the ones he doesn't, he can always veto, but Bush has veto 10 bills, but there was not a single veto through March of 2006. All 10 have been since then.

Bush Sr. vetoed 44 bills in his one term in office. Bill Clinton, vetoed 37 bills in his eight years. Reagan vetoed 78, Carter 31, Ford 66, and Nixon vetoed 43 bills before being impeached.

So what does that tell you? I'll help. It tells you that despite the nearly equal split in congress between Dems and Repubs, Bush has managed to get his congressional supporters to ONLY push through bills in a form he is willing to sign.

So his power is in his congressional support, not in his title.

So explain to me - as an independent candidate, exactly what group of legislators would Ron Paul count on to provide that level of Congressional support a president needs to have to get his agenda pushed through?

The Dems? No way. His ideals are mostly at the opposite end of their spectrum, and they'd see to it any of his more extreme ( for them) concepts never make it to his desk in a form he wouldn't want to veto. The Repubs? You mean those he hasn't alienated already or those left leaning ones who aren't very likely to vote his way on extreme issues?

Is that it? Where is his OWN party? Does he have one? A few hundred thousand supporters does not a president make.

Regarding McCain being better on foreign policy, I assume you want an expansion of the nebulous 'war on terror' that we are engaged in?

That IS what we can fully expect if he is elected.

You assume too much, but that's part of your problem. You're like the baseball fan of a losing team who wants to get rid of the shitty veteran pitcher and put in the untested rookie who has "promise", because you think anything is better than what you currently have, despite the total lack of evidence that the new guy will do any better, outside of your "feeling" that he will.

So, Go out and start a new party, gather some momentum, place some believers in congress, and get a candidate in the mix who WILL be able to compete, then call me.

Until then, we are a two party system, with a whopping 1% of the voting public not voting for either of those parties candidates.

But I guess it's a start. Good luck.

[poptart]

You assume too much, but that's part of your problem.

No, no, no, don't argue like a woman.

You said that you favor McCain over Paul on foreign policy and I made the LOGIC assumption as to why, since you didn't explain why YOURSELF.

McCain will at least continue on with the war on terror path that Bush has gone on, if not expand upon it.
Or no?

And you favor this?
Or no?


Regarding Paul not getting anything through the house and congress, well, you may have noticed that he had tremendous support among DEMOCRATS on Iraq when he was articulating his foreign policy during the republican debates.

And MUCH of his domestic agenda/beliefs resonate with REPUBLICANS.

So I think he could get some things done.

This is not to say that he would have his all of agenda met, because of course he would not, just as ANY president does not.
That is where the term COMPROMISE comes in.
So Paul would have to compromise some of his positions if he wanted to 'get things done.'
Ok, at least we're working toward a 'compromise' with a guy who's desired agenda is one that is favorable to ... US.
So there is a better chance that the compromises that can be reached are closer to what WE want than if two sides come together in agreement to fuck US over, which is what you are in here championing. lol

[Mister Bushice]

You said that you favor McCain over Paul on foreign policy and I made the LOGIC assumption as to why, since you didn't explain why YOURSELF.

Don't misquote me. I said Mccain would do just as well.

So, I guess you made an ILLOGIC assumption right there.

And I don't believe he will continue with the war outside of its existing scope, re: winding down in Iraq, and handling the challenge of Afghanistan. He has never made the statement that he would expand it, either.

I'm not in favor of invading other countries unless we do so to defend our own soil.

I expect the middle east will want to police itself in re :Iran, as no one wants a country full of nutcases in possession of nuclear weapons. I do not want us to pull an "Iraq" in Iran, nor do I think either candidate would do that, but I don't think Obama has enough experience to deal properly with an international crisis.

I'm not saying Paul could, I'll bet he could. I don't think he's off the capability chart, he's just off the possibility chart.

So it obviously ain't gonna happen this go round.

So Paul would have to compromise some of his positions if he wanted to 'get things done.'
Ok, at least we're working toward a 'compromise' with a guy who's desired agenda is one that is favorable to ... US.
So there is a better chance that the compromises that can be reached are closer to what WE want than if two sides come together in agreement to fuck US over, which is what you are in here championing. lol

Well, no, I'm being a realist.

When you bring that 1% of all registered voters who are NOT voting for one of the two parties up to say, 15% for one third party guy, you might have something.

Either that, or get your man the republican/democratic nomination next time around.

Until then you're a puddle of piss in a monsoon.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...re: winding down in Iraq...

There is no "winding down in Iraq" coming from either candidate.


Thank fucking goodness.