Since: Jun 09

Madison, WI

#41 Sep 25, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Ron Paul could have had a chance if he could have made it further in the pre-primary stuff. Minnesota Republicans and libertarians seem to favor Ron Paul quite a bit.
Our Iron Range democrats are very liberal on social issues like welfare, helping the poor, etc.-- it's their socialist roots from Norway, Sweden, and Finland. But they are rather religious (they're the Lutherans who go to church all day on Sunday and another night during the week), so they won't go like most democrats when the marriage amendment comes up for a vote this year.
I think Ron Paul appeals to more moderate Republicans who don't have such an anti-working-class bias of the very wealthy ones who run for office.
There are a lot of things I like about Ron Paul, but he would not get elected president. For one, he tells it like he sees it. That's not very good for a presidential candidate. Second, he has some extreme beliefs, especially regarding his rigid interpretation of the constitution. If he could have his way, it would lead to short-term economic disaster for the country. If he could, he would abolish so many federal departments and cut so much federal spending that unemployment would skyrocket and a recession/depression would ensue. Obviously, he wouldn't get his way on everything, but he would get crucified by the press if he were nominated.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#42 Sep 25, 2012
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>One requires consensus, the other can be run by edict.
Obama hasn't done much of anything in the case of the former.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#43 Sep 25, 2012
PEllen wrote:
FWIW, the guys at coffee, including some true conservative Republicans, pretty much figure that Romny is a weak candidate and he can't win and that Obama could have been picked off by someone stronger.

Romney does better with teh donors than teh electorate.
He is weak. They are both weak candidates, but Romney doesn't know how to take advantage of Obama's weakness. I good debater would skewer Obama over his promises, actions,and fiscal recklessness. I know politicians are never true to their word, but you shouldn't be able to say all these things while campaigning and then do the complete opposite on so many issues.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#44 Sep 25, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
He is weak. They are both weak candidates, but Romney doesn't know how to take advantage of Obama's weakness. I good debater would skewer Obama over his promises, actions,and fiscal recklessness. I know politicians are never true to their word, but you shouldn't be able to say all these things while campaigning and then do the complete opposite on so many issues.
I am left with the impression that is just what Romney intends to do.

Etch A Sketch is not far off the mark

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#45 Sep 25, 2012
cycle003 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a lot of things I like about Ron Paul, but he would not get elected president. For one, he tells it like he sees it. That's not very good for a presidential candidate. Second, he has some extreme beliefs, especially regarding his rigid interpretation of the constitution. If he could have his way, it would lead to short-term economic disaster for the country. If he could, he would abolish so many federal departments and cut so much federal spending that unemployment would skyrocket and a recession/depression would ensue. Obviously, he wouldn't get his way on everything, but he would get crucified by the press if he were nominated.
Oh, I agree, but he's very likeable on the surface, and deeper by people who swing his way politically.

I happen to like candidates who tell it like they see it. Even if I disagree, I figure, at least I can believe they're speaking their mind. I am from a state where the governor never uttered his opinion unless there was a public opinion poll to tell him what to say.

Since: Jun 09

Madison, WI

#46 Sep 25, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I agree, but he's very likeable on the surface, and deeper by people who swing his way politically.
I happen to like candidates who tell it like they see it. Even if I disagree, I figure, at least I can believe they're speaking their mind. I am from a state where the governor never uttered his opinion unless there was a public opinion poll to tell him what to say.
And that's why I like Ron Paul, but I think his economic policies would be disastrous in the short term. Maybe a major reset is what we need as a country, but I sure don't want to face economic woes.

I also like the libertarian view on social issues.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#47 Sep 25, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
He is weak. They are both weak candidates
Heard on the radio yesterday, a current president with such low approval numbers as Obama has never been reelected. Conversely, a presidential candidate with such low approval numbers as Romney, has never WON an election. So we've got two weak candidates going after each other. Should be good.

However, the election is still several months away and the debates are gonna sway voters towards one or the other.

I hate to make predictions as I fear they might jinx the natural order of things, but my opinion is Romney will win, possibly by a landslide. People just aren't happy with Obama's record and failed campaign promises. Hope and change got him elected and he just hasn't been able to deliver. A majority of Americans still don't want Obamacare and know electing a Republican is the only way to over turn it. That, and illegally granting amnesty to a million illegals and flip-flopping on gay marriage and ending don't ask, don't tell, are really gonna hurt Obama. Oh, AND telling small business owners "You didn't build that." I think people are ready for a different kind of hope and change and don't want another four years of the same nothing. The economy and job numbers still aren't that great and telling someone "Just hang in there a little longer," isn't gonna be much consolation for someone who's been on the unemployment line for two years. While Romney may be weak, who else they got?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#48 Sep 25, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>Heard on the radio yesterday, a current president with such low approval numbers as Obama has never been reelected. Conversely, a presidential candidate with such low approval numbers as Romney, has never WON an election. So we've got two weak candidates going after each other. Should be good.

However, the election is still several months away and the debates are gonna sway voters towards one or the other.

I hate to make predictions as I fear they might jinx the natural order of things, but my opinion is Romney will win, possibly by a landslide. People just aren't happy with Obama's record and failed campaign promises. Hope and change got him elected and he just hasn't been able to deliver. A majority of Americans still don't want Obamacare and know electing a Republican is the only way to over turn it. That, and illegally granting amnesty to a million illegals and flip-flopping on gay marriage and ending don't ask, don't tell, are really gonna hurt Obama. Oh, AND telling small business owners "You didn't build that." I think people are ready for a different kind of hope and change and don't want another four years of the same nothing. The economy and job numbers still aren't that great and telling someone "Just hang in there a little longer," isn't gonna be much consolation for someone who's been on the unemployment line for two years. While Romney may be weak, who else they got?
I hope you are right. Clinton just sounded the alarm on debt the other day too:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/...

He gets it! Obama doesn't.

I will say it once again ... was just so incredibly reckless to creat another massive entitlement expansion. Not only that, but they financed 6 years of outlays for it with 10 years of taxes.

I wish to god obama were more like Clinton instead of the traditional big government democrat. Is he really the guy who is going to prevent us from suffering Greece's fate? He is totally oblivious to where out of control spending is leading us.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#49 Sep 30, 2012
Illinois is exempt fom Federal taxation, or at least teh 5th congressional district is because they have no siting senator and no sitting representative so it would taxation without representation.

I think I'm going to move to Hyde Park, the next big tax aven

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#50 Oct 1, 2012
PEllen wrote:
Illinois is exempt fom Federal taxation, or at least teh 5th congressional district is because they have no siting senator and no sitting representative so it would taxation without representation.
I think I'm going to move to Hyde Park, the next big tax aven
For all practical purposes, neither does the 2nd. They say he's a shoe-in for re-election too. <rolls eyes>

Heck, if the Marion Barry can get busted smoking crack and get re-elected, I can't say I'm surprised.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#51 Oct 1, 2012
Are we both talking about Jesse Jr? Or are you adding Walsh who doesn't show up because he doesn't like Obama's policies?

Jesse Jr is doing what John Stroger did and we wound up with Todd, God help us.

I hope Quinn acts honoraby here and doesn't just appoint Jesse Jr's wife

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#52 Oct 1, 2012
PEllen wrote:
Are we both talking about Jesse Jr? Or are you adding Walsh who doesn't show up because he doesn't like Obama's policies?
Jesse Jr is doing what John Stroger did and we wound up with Todd, God help us.
I hope Quinn acts honoraby here and doesn't just appoint Jesse Jr's wife
By golly, yes, I think we are.

Jesse, Jr is from the 2nd, not the 5th (I don't profess to know who represents every district ... I had to google it myself):

http://jackson.house.gov/

When you mentioned the 5th, I thought perhaps you were talking about something else that I was not aware of.

I feel bad for the guy. I suspect a lot of his issues are from how he was raised, but I think it just makes folks look ridiculous when they for all practical purposes elect someone who represents them no different than a corpse might, regardless of R or D.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#53 Oct 4, 2012
"squishymama wrote:
I don't know why you keep insisting that one party is better than the other. "

"Sublime1 wrote:
You are the one who said, "He can demonstrate all he wants, but unless he has a magic wand to make his party behave better, nothing will change," which suggests that you think the democratic party does not itself need to behave better.

In fact, whereas Romney has demonstrated he can compromise and balance a budget, even if you contend the republican party needs to behave better, both Obama and his party have DEMONSTRATED that they need to behave better. Obama hasn't done anything except the same stuff he accused Bush of doing, i.e. increasing spending without paying for it.

So the choice is one guy running for President who has demonstrated the ability to get the job done, who has a party that has to behave better or the other guy running for President, i.e. Obama who has never demonstrated the ability to get the job done, and who also has a party that has to behave better. I'll go with the guy who has demonstrated something in that case. "

I clearly stated in the sentance after the one you're quoting that I think both parties are equally horrible.

I just happen to believe that the Democrates are slightly less horrible, mostly based on social issues.
dahgts

Chicago, IL

#54 Oct 4, 2012
From the Dog: Get over it people, it's election time.

Angela, Sub, cycle, raising taxes during a recession is NOT how you stimulate growth and gain consumer confidence. A retarded monkey knows this. Surely you people are smarter than a retarded monkey... right?

If Americas tax rates are so low, why are businesses investing their money overseas? A business's main priority is profit, not job creation. Tax rates need to be LOWERED.

Manufacturing and job creation is DOWN right now because Obama policies are NOT business friendly. ANY unbiased economist will tell you this.

Businesses went overseas because their highest cost is labor, not their taxes,ie:GE.
You can blame the unions, cost of living,etc. but the reality is that these jobs aren't coming back. It will take foresighted govt. and private cooperation to come up with a different path to restore some semblance of what the middle class was in the past. Repubs haven't shown to be in that mold. Unfortunately, the nutjob far right who go into a Faux News coma wants to take away women's rights to their bodies and wants religion to guide everyone's life and has never, ever addressed education except to force creationism in public schools has had way too much influence in this country. This country is 16th in math and 23rd in science to all industrialized countries. We're dumbing down every day. Millions of dollars to subsidize oil companies but no pittance to public tv or radio? There's more to this country then the debt, as important as that is. Anyone who comments that both sides haven't the guts to do what it takes without throwing the less fortunate to the curb is correct, IMO.

A tea party is for little girls with imaginary friends.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#55 Oct 4, 2012
dahgts wrote:
Businesses went overseas because their highest cost is labor, not their taxes,ie:GE.
You can blame the unions, cost of living,etc. but the reality is that these jobs aren't coming back. It will take foresighted govt. and private cooperation to come up with a different path to restore some semblance of what the middle class was in the past. Repubs haven't shown to be in that mold. Unfortunately, the nutjob far right who go into a Faux News coma wants to take away women's rights to their bodies and wants religion to guide everyone's life and has never, ever addressed education except to force creationism in public schools has had way too much influence in this country. This country is 16th in math and 23rd in science to all industrialized countries. We're dumbing down every day. Millions of dollars to subsidize oil companies but no pittance to public tv or radio? There's more to this country then the debt, as important as that is. Anyone who comments that both sides haven't the guts to do what it takes without throwing the less fortunate to the curb is correct, IMO.
A tea party is for little girls with imaginary friends.
They're moving *production* overseas for that reason and I'll agree it will be tough to get those jobs back. But instead of reinvesting in their business or the economy, they're stashing their profits in tax shelters because the rates in America are so high, it wouldn't make any business sense to invest it here.

And our education is poor because now we can't even give children failing grades anymore because we're concerned about hurting their feelings. And the teachers union has become greedy and teachers lazy.

And when you start spouting "nutjob repubs" and "faux news" (faux is pronounced "foe" btw) it's clear that you are one of these mindless liberals whose socialist agendas are the reason this country is in such dire straights.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#56 Oct 4, 2012
squishymama wrote:
"squishymama wrote:
I don't know why you keep insisting that one party is better than the other. "
"Sublime1 wrote:
You are the one who said, "He can demonstrate all he wants, but unless he has a magic wand to make his party behave better, nothing will change," which suggests that you think the democratic party does not itself need to behave better.
In fact, whereas Romney has demonstrated he can compromise and balance a budget, even if you contend the republican party needs to behave better, both Obama and his party have DEMONSTRATED that they need to behave better. Obama hasn't done anything except the same stuff he accused Bush of doing, i.e. increasing spending without paying for it.
So the choice is one guy running for President who has demonstrated the ability to get the job done, who has a party that has to behave better or the other guy running for President, i.e. Obama who has never demonstrated the ability to get the job done, and who also has a party that has to behave better. I'll go with the guy who has demonstrated something in that case. "
I clearly stated in the sentance after the one you're quoting that I think both parties are equally horrible.
I just happen to believe that the Democrates are slightly less horrible, mostly based on social issues.
All politicians want your money. Democrats just want it for more productive purposes than republicans do. Take the military. We outspend all the major countries (including China) by more than 2-1 That's all them COMBINED. We have the finest military in the world and Rmoney thinks it will (somehow) be finer by spending 2 TRILLION more. Well, better have something to show for that. War with Iran sounds very good to him. 2 trillion sounds good to the Military Industrial Complex too. They profits will soar, especially after unions and wage laws have been trashed and the glorious *free market* dictates wages that might make WalMart blush. Add tax cuts for the wealthy and increases on the middle class and Rmoney does us like Bain did their clients.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#57 Oct 4, 2012
If we have the best military in the world, why are we bogged down in decade wars with two countries?

Who needs a military? Let the cartels take over America from the south, let Canada reclaim Alaska and take over from the north, maybe China from the west?

The military... All they do is waterboard innocent children and stack innocent villagers in naked piles of humility. Get rid of the whole dam system, I say!

I'm pretty sure we wont erupt into utter chaos without a strong military!

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#58 Oct 5, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
If we have the best military in the world, why are we bogged down in decade wars with two countries?
Who needs a military? Let the cartels take over America from the south, let Canada reclaim Alaska and take over from the north, maybe China from the west?
The military... All they do is waterboard innocent children and stack innocent villagers in naked piles of humility. Get rid of the whole dam system, I say!
I'm pretty sure we wont erupt into utter chaos without a strong military!
I think there are more choices than either spending more on military or disbanding it -- don't you? It seems that might be what you are saying -- that we either spend more on the miltary or get rid of it.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#59 Oct 5, 2012
I'm saying the military is a necessary expense. Liberals disagree. They would rather see that money invested in solar companies, eventhough billions of tax dollars already went to waste so the industry could go bankrupt, but hey, they're not ones to let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#60 Oct 5, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
I'm saying the military is a necessary expense. Liberals disagree. They would rather see that money invested in solar companies, eventhough billions of tax dollars already went to waste so the industry could go bankrupt, but hey, they're not ones to let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions.
So are you saying these "liberals" want to disband the military? Is that what you are saying? I'm trying to get to the facts as you see them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Burbank Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 min Sgt Prepper 182,066
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min FYI 1,155,770
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 19 min Religionthebiglie 51,284
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr OzRitz 49,316
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr moe 98,875
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL 71,233
December 2015 Vargas 2 hr Pending 12
Burbank Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Burbank People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Burbank News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Burbank

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Breaking Down Colts' Game Plan vs. Titans
Bleacher Report 5:00 AM
Can't-Miss Picks and Matchup Guide
Bleacher Report 8:09 AM
Breaking Down Bears' Game Plan vs. Vikings
NBC Sports 9:15 AM
Lance Briggs "happy" with Robbie Gould's comments
Bleacher Report11:45 AM
Complete Week 17 Preview for Vikings vs. Bears