Bye Mitt!

[chaswiggins]

There is a reason why in the primaries and caucuses so far a little over 19 million have voted democrat and 12 million have voted republican. And when Huckabee/Paul drop out and McCain is the Repub. candidate, they'll be so many republicans that won't show up to vote in the general it'll be silly.

The only way McCain could win the general is if 1. Hillary doesn't ask Obama to run as VP. 2. If McCain picks Colin Powell to be Pres. 3. If pigs begin to fly.

[ensteele]

For the good of this country, I hope you are wrong.

[chaswiggins]

Originally Posted by ensteele

For the good of this country, I hope you are wrong.

Why would you be so pessimistic about the potential for so much good to come?

[ensteele]

I live in a Democratic State (liberal) and am being taxed excessively. I don't even want to go on about what else is in the future for us.

[ensteele]

Originally Posted by chaswiggins

Why would you be so pessimistic about the potential for so much good to come?

Oh, do you mean the invitation to the terrorists to come to our home soil, and redistribution of money made (or increase in taxes) just to mention a couple.

[chaswiggins]

The US has amounted a 7 trillion dollar deficit over the past 7 years.

I am quite optimistic that a democrat in the highest office will do the country good on all levels including homeland security.

I too am fearful of another attack on US soil. It is only a matter of time before it happens but you have to realize that the war in Iraq has over shadowed and put our goal to erradicate terrorism on the back burner.

WHERE'S BIN LADEN?? You'd think after spending 2trillion on 2 wars and over 3000 US soldiers dead we could have found the mastermind behind 911. Its already known that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911 so why stay there and call it the frontline on terror. Bush is an idiot.

I want my friends and family home!!

[ensteele]

Originally Posted by chaswiggins

The US has amounted a 7 trillion dollar deficit over the past 7 years.

I am quite optimistic that a democrat in the highest office will do the country good on all levels including homeland security.

I too am fearful of another attack on US soil. It is only a matter of time before it happens but you have to realize that the war in Iraq has over shadowed and put our goal to erradicate terrorism on the back burner.

WHERE'S BIN LADEN?? You'd think after spending 2trillion on 2 wars and over 3000 US soldiers dead we could have found the mastermind behind 911. Its already known that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911 so why stay there and call it the frontline on terror. Bush is an idiot.

I want my friends and family home!!

That amount of money spent is not just for hunting Bin Laden. That was not the goal in Iraq.

Many people during WWI, WW2 and past wars and conflicts wanted their friends and family members home, but that was not possible. They were in the military and their duty was already defined for them.

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by chaswiggins

There is a reason why in the primaries and caucuses so far a little over 19 million have voted democrat and 12 million have voted republican.

And that is reason is there are far more registered democrats right now than republicans.
How is this significant?
MOST people are so bound to partisanship they refuse to look outside their registered party.
As an example, when I asked my mother who she wanted to vote for (Obama) I asked her why and she didn't really have an answer, so I tried to convince her to vote for Ron Paul.
I was able to convince her he was a good candidate, but when I told her he was runing republican she outright refused saying she will not vote for a republican.

I think the moral here is LOTS of people are like that. Your 19 million Dems probably did not even weigh any of the Reps, and vice versa.

I guess the few of us who stand beyond partisanship or religious/military loyalty are Ron Paul supporters.

[chaswiggins]

I like Ron Paul. Honest, straight talker, wants to revamp Washington; GREAT IDEA!

The problem is that he is out of main stream politics and way to radical. This is why Nader was never elected. I love Ralph Nader btw.

It is my belief that Rove politics divided this nation and that type of politics is out the door. That type of politics is not patriotic.

Quote--"And that is reason is there are far more registered democrats right now than republicans."

FAR MORE, ha. People are sick and tired of big government something the republicans are supposed to be against.

[NikFu S.]

See, I don't think he is radical at all. I find him to be VERY conservative. He doesn't have one radical thought in his mellow head but his plans to reform the faces of government has people shaking in their boots, so they call him "radical" and "isolationist" and people buy into it.
I feel he is by far the most patriotic candidate, and the least likely to sell out to big corp, unless you think the corporate interest is partiotism.
He wants minimal government, and fair treatment of everyone. You can't rely on democrats to give you that just because they say they are democrats.
There is a lot going on behind the scenes, a lot you can't prove, but with Ron there is no scenes. There is no secrets. There is no greed, there is no lies, there is no hidden agenda.

I have yet to hear one good reason why he should not be in office.

[chaswiggins]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

See, I don't think he is radical at all. I find him to be VERY conservative. He doesn't have one radical thought in his mellow head but his plans to reform the faces of government has people shaking in their boots, so they call him "radical" and "isolationist" and people buy into it.
I feel he is by far the most patriotic candidate, and the least likely to sell out to big corp, unless you think the corporate interest is partiotism.
He wants minimal government, and fair treatment of everyone. You can't rely on democrats to give you that just because they say they are democrats.
There is a lot going on behind the scenes, a lot you can't prove, but with Ron there is no scenes. There is no secrets. There is no greed, there is no lies, there is no hidden agenda.

I have yet to hear one good reason why he should not be in office.

I completely agree with you but in the world of politics one has to be realistic. He wants to essentially get rid of all government agengies, which would leave millions of people without high paying government jobs. The private sector couldn't provide those people with instant jobs. Do you know what would happen if millions of people with +50k salaries lost there jobs overnight. Recession. Stock market crash. Depression. Its that easy.

If Ron Paul toned down his rhetoric just a little he might appeal to more people, but to revamp a 3.1Trillion budget economy its gonna take a lot more than a good guy with pretty good ideas.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by chaswiggins

WHERE'S BIN LADEN?? You'd think after spending 2trillion on 2 wars and over 3000 US soldiers dead we could have found the mastermind behind 911. Its already known that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911 so why stay there and call it the frontline on terror. Bush is an idiot.

I want my friends and family home!!

You ask the wrong question and are fully aware of it. The question is--How many attacks have there been on US soil since start of the War on Terror?? How much influence and direct control has Osama had on worldwide terror planning??--practically zero as its hard to operate from deep hiding.

The vast majority of "your friends and family" believe in what they are doing and are fully willing to sacrifice all to complete their missions. But even that is a mute point at this time---we simply cannot leave it unfinished for the chaos and long term problems it would create. Not to mention short term direct acts against US soil and/or interests.

I agree with Earl--I don't need any more taxes either to give to non producing or non contributors to our society. (and don't start on speeches about the "disenfanchised"--that is a catchy term that has no basis in reality) Payment for non-productivity is a slippery slope from which there is no return.

Oh, I love one of those Hillary commercials--that says she warned Bush over a year ago about the coming mortgage crunch. The question should be---Hillary, WHAT LEGISLATION DID YOU INTRODUCE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AT THAT TIME--OR EVEN BETTER WHAT LEGISLATION DID ANY DEMOCRAT INTRODUCE OR PROPOSE THEN?? Its very easy to point out problems and anyone with a half brain could have seen this coming years ago when all the "creative" financing options came out. Solutions are what is needed and they should not be to bail out people who knew they would have to payup at some point or be bailed out at the expense of other taxpayers. The legislation should be to keep big business from making such deals that will eventually come due. There needs to be many new laws in the area of financing debt--whether credit card or mortgage. As we all know---large credit is extended to people that have no business getting it and will obviously default at some future point.

Didn't mean to say so much---

Lee

[chaswiggins]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

You ask the wrong question and are fully aware of it. The question is--How many attacks have there been on US soil since start of the War on Terror?? How much influence and direct control has Osama had on worldwide terror planning??--practically zero as its hard to operate from deep hiding.

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror until after we invaded, through over, and occupied. Latest Pentegon studies show that Al Queda is at its full potential again.

for the chaos and long term problems it would create.

Iraq is as chaotic as it ever will be. Do you actually think our military can root out and kill every single insurgent? Not a chance as long as we are occupying there country.

I don't need any more taxes either to give to non producing or non contributors to our society.

Buddy well get used to it. This country wouldn't work without taxes and thanks to the Bush admins terrible decisions, my great grandchildren will be paying for this war. The only way to get back on track fiscally is to elect a Democrat.

Oh, I love one of those Hillary commercials--that says she warned Bush over a year ago about the coming mortgage crunch. The question should be---Hillary, WHAT LEGISLATION DID YOU INTRODUCE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AT THAT TIME--OR EVEN BETTER WHAT LEGISLATION DID ANY DEMOCRAT INTRODUCE OR PROPOSE THEN??

Doh, the republicans controlled all three branches of government, its impossible to pass any legislation when Capitol Hill is hijacked. The dems knew that they'd have to wait until 06 when the country was ready to boot it republican elected officials. Now that congress is narrowly democratically controlled, the republicans can filibuster any legislation that might thwart their doomed agenda.

[sicksubie]

Originally Posted by chaswiggins

I completely agree with you but in the world of politics one has to be realistic. He wants to essentially get rid of all government agengies, which would leave millions of people without high paying government jobs. The private sector couldn't provide those people with instant jobs. Do you know what would happen if millions of people with +50k salaries lost there jobs overnight. Recession. Stock market crash. Depression. Its that easy.

If Ron Paul toned down his rhetoric just a little he might appeal to more people, but to revamp a 3.1Trillion budget economy its gonna take a lot more than a good guy with pretty good ideas.

Laughable, very laughable. Stock market crashes? Recessions? Please, be serious. There would not be a simultaneous firing of government employees. First of all it is VERY hard to eliminate government jobs and second of all they all have VERY nice pensions. The market would not even hiccup with the termination of government jobs. In fact long term it would probably be good for the economy. More skilled people in the private sector, less government expenditures = good things to come. Please do not state economic issues as if they are fact unless you truly know what you are saying. I myself am only a senior in college (Finance and Economics major) and realize that I still have a long ways to go before I know even an iota about economies. The things you stated though are basic microecon stuff and they are wrong.


P.S. And to touch on something you said earlier about 19million dems voting versus 12million reps. That is because there is no candidate that really entices true conservatives. McCain disgusts me on several issues. Luckily I do not live in a "battleground" state because I would be forced to vote for him just to keep Clinton or Obama out of office. I will be voting for Ron Paul because like NikFu said, I have not seen a reason that he should not be elected.

[sicksubie]

Wow... NikFu and I agree See there is hope...