93EXCivic wrote: If Ron Paul is anything like his son, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for him.
Care to explain?
93EXCivic wrote: If Ron Paul is anything like his son, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for him.
Care to explain?
In reply to DILYSI Dave:
My guess is he doesn't vote for libertarians.
DILYSI Dave wrote:93EXCivic wrote: If Ron Paul is anything like his son, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for him.Care to explain?
Raid Paul is in the back pockets of the coal companies and as a result, he supports mountain top removal. When you have seen the effects that has on the environment and people in that area I couldn't in good faith vote for him. There were a number of other issues I didn't argee with Raud Paul on during his election in KY.
In reply to 93EXCivic:
Well that is unfortunate, although this is the first I've ever heard of mountain top removal, so I'm not up on both sides of the issue. And I'm not aware that Ron shares that position, but I think I'll find out.
ps - I assume your incorrect spelling of his name was intentional. 
93EXCivic wrote: If Ron Paul is anything like his son, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for him.
I'm not as crazy about the kid either. The old man comes off like a down to earth guy with principals. I know the son is saying a lot of the same things, but he just seems bitter and angry. Plus he says stupid stuff from time to time that makes you wonder about his judgment. Kinda like his ideology has overtaken in intellect. He'll probably sort it all out as he gets older.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:93EXCivic wrote: If Ron Paul is anything like his son, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for him.I'm not as crazy about the kid either. The old man comes off like a down to earth guy with principals. I know the son is saying a lot of the same things, but he just seems bitter and angry. Plus he says stupid stuff from time to time that makes you wonder about his judgment. Kinda like his ideology has overtaken in intellect. He'll probably sort it all out as he gets older.
That sounds like an affirmation of a certain quote, often attributed to Winston Churchill.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:93EXCivic wrote: If Ron Paul is anything like his son, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for him.I'm not as crazy about the kid either. The old man comes off like a down to earth guy with principals. I know the son is saying a lot of the same things, but he just seems bitter and angry. Plus he says stupid stuff from time to time that makes you wonder about his judgment. Kinda like his ideology has overtaken in intellect. He'll probably sort it all out as he gets older.
That too. From what I have seen of Ron Paul he does seem much more down to earth.
DILYSI Dave wrote:Joe Gearin wrote: I know of one politician who doesn't lie......one. He will never get elected president because he doesn't tell people what they want to hear. (as all other politicians do) He ran in the last race and was the ONLY candidate warning about the impending financial crisis. The other candidates laughed him off the stage, and went on with their B.S. standard wedge issues (class warfare, immigration, gay rights) His name is Ron Paul, and if he was "presidential looking" he'd have a real shot at winning this time around. I don't think I'm alone in being disgusted by the current two party system. I also don't think I'm alone in yearning for a candidate who isn't completely full of E36 M3. Hard-core conservatives will always vote with the GOP. Hard-core lefties will vote Democrat. The winners are decided by the middle. I think there is a real opening for a viable 3rd party candidate, as a ton of folks are fed up with the scum that inhabits our legislative and executive branches of government. Weiner is just another example in a long line of dishonest politicians. (on both sides) I'd be surprised if most of our lawmakers didn't have similar skeletons waiting to jump out of the closet. I'd like to see him resign, but hell, I'd like to see them ALL resign!
+1. I think he'll have more support this time than in the last election. I'll vote for him or Herman Cain in the primaries if they're both still around. Ron Paul is the only one who I agree with straight down the list on issues, but it's looking like Herman will have more of a real shot at it.
Sadly, I'm not berkeleying around in the general election this time. I voted Libertarian last time, as I couldn't in good conscience vote for McCain. This time, I would, in good conscience, vote for a fresh, steaming pile of E36 M3 to keep Obama from getting a second term.
poopshovel wrote: Sadly, I'm not berkeleying around in the general election this time. I voted Libertarian last time, as I couldn't in good conscience vote for McCain. This time, I would, in good conscience, vote for a fresh, steaming pile of E36 M3 to keep Obama from getting a second term.
If the two choices are both bad again, I will once again vote for someone who has no chance of winning. I couldn't vote for McCain last time around either and there was no way I was going to vote for Obama. I am going to stick with my approach of no longer voting for the least worst candidate. I made the mistake of voting for Bush because I couldn't stomach the idea of President Gore. I learned my lesson.
poopshovel wrote: This time, I would, in good conscience, vote for a fresh, steaming pile of E36 M3 to keep Obama from getting a second term.
I rarely vote for the politician I like the best. Instead, I identify the one I dislike the most, then vote for the one most able to keep the bad one out of office.
Why all the talk about voting? If you want to make a choice, vote for the senate, house, and all the other stuff where your vote actually counts. I vote, but I spend my time thinking about the propositions. Sure, its good to know about the people who will be running our country, but when the populace vote for president doesn't do a berkeleying thing, why do you worry about who you "vote" for anyway?
If you want to make a difference, become someone your local members of the electorate college know.
God bless the NY Post
"Disgusted Democrats letting Weiner shrivel By S.A. MILLER in Washington and SALLY GOLDENBERG and BOB FREDERICKS in NY
Top Senate Democrat Harry Reid cut off disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner"
Wally wrote: God bless the NY Post "Disgusted Democrats letting Weiner shrivel By S.A. MILLER in Washington and SALLY GOLDENBERG and BOB FREDERICKS in NY Top Senate Democrat Harry Reid cut off disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner"
The longer Weiner remains a member of Congress, more jokes are coming.
Thanks, folks; I'll be here all week. And remember to tip your waitress - with cash, not a tweet.
Josh wrote:bravenrace wrote: In reply to Josh: In other words the Republicans need to purge themselves of corrupt members because they have a moral compass and the Dems don't.No, the republicans' lies just have to be a lot more widespread and complicated.
Like the WMDs in Iraq?
neon4891 wrote:Josh wrote:Like the WMDs in Iraq?bravenrace wrote: In reply to Josh: In other words the Republicans need to purge themselves of corrupt members because they have a moral compass and the Dems don't.No, the republicans' lies just have to be a lot more widespread and complicated.
Or like "pursuing America's best interests" in Libya and Yemen.
neon4891 wrote: American involvement in Libya and Yemen is just another "Brushfire War" like our involment in Somalia, the Balkens, ect. Not a full invasion and near decades worth of occupation.
You know that HOW?
Start another thread if you want to discuss it.
In reply to oldsaw: I'm sorry for getting a little too riled up, and have since removed said post. I simply meant to point out differences in scale of said conflicts.
Back on topic, Represenatives only have 2 year terms. Let him serve it out and we will see if his constiuents want him to serve again. Then again we are talking about NYC Dems...
Heard on the news morning that another pic has surfaced that, ahem, leaves nothing to the imagination.
And the calls to resign within his own party are growing. If the fervor continues to build like this, I'd imagine he only has a few more weeks.
JeffHarbert wrote: This. Being a saint is not a requisite of holding office. This whole attitude that elected officials should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us is absurd.
I haven't read the whole thread yet, but WHAT? So, thousands of people "trust" one person (via their vote) to be an accountable, non-corrupt individual who represents their ideas, values, and lets say "beliefs" in government, but we can't hold them to a higher standard? They should be set to a standard equivalent 1000 times great than a single person. Anything less than that is absurd. It would be like giving the keys to a bank vault to a robber. 
In reply to HiTempguy:
Exactly.
HiTempguy wrote: ......So, thousands of people "trust" one person (via their vote) to be an accountable, non-corrupt individual who represents their ideas, values, and lets say "beliefs" in government, but we can't hold them to a higher standard? They should be set to a standard equivalent 1000 times great than a single person....
Yes, but they are also "representatives". So they "represent" their constituents. It looks like he mostly represents Queens. Never been there, but who are we (or the Democratic party, or news organizations) to say it is inappropriate, it's up to them.
In reply to aircooled:
Weiner represents the same district as Chuck Shumer did before he succesfully ran for a NY Senate seat. That bit of info says volumes about the character of his constituents.
Shumer is known as "most dangerous man in Congress" when there are cameras rolling. His protege is just following in the footsteps.
LOL. Wiener.
oldsaw wrote: Weiner represents the same district as Chuck Shumer did before he succesfully ran for a NY Senate seat. That bit of info says volumes about the character of his constituents...
Bob Dole once quipped that "the most dangerous place in Washington is between Charles Schumer and a television camera,"
Barack Obama joked that Schumer brought along the press to a banquet as his "loved ones."
You'll need to log in to post.
