Well Cain is gone, who's next

SVreX wrote: What I am saying is that some people (not me, yet) will think the WORST thing for the country would be another term with Mr. Obama. A vote for a candidate that can win would therefore be the best thing for the country. Since Mr. Paul is AT BEST an extremely long shot, voting for the candidate who can beat Mr. Obama might be BETTER for the country (even if it included voting for the candidate who did not alienate the religious right, or whatever other group you want to consider important for the win)

^This...........

I'm a Libertarian at heart but I'm also a pragmatic voter. Ron Paul, even though I (philosphically) support his stance, just isn't the best person to challenge an incumbent President and carry the election.

In good faith, I have a fundamental disagreement with the direction (and attitude) Obama has used to steer the course of this country. I'm supporting a viable, win-capable alternative even when it requires holding the nose and swallowing distasteful medicine.

Otto Maddox wrote: You might be right. Tea partiers think they are libertarians. But they aren't. They just think they are better qualified than others to determine what liberties we don't deserve.

The same can be said for OWS minions and they are no better qualified than Tea Partiers.

Unless one agrees with one or the other.

mad_machine wrote: Nothing against your mom (sounds like the start of a bad joke) but people like her need to consider what is BEST for the country, not just what appeals to her narrow religious view. That goes for all with narrow views. There comes a time when you have to think of the needs of the many over the needs of the few

The difficulty here is the religious right really does believe their views are what's best for the country.

Ian F wrote:

mad_machine wrote: Nothing against your mom (sounds like the start of a bad joke) but people like her need to consider what is BEST for the country, not just what appeals to her narrow religious view. That goes for all with narrow views. There comes a time when you have to think of the needs of the many over the needs of the few

The difficulty here is the religious right really does believe their views are what's best for the country.

How is this different from the extremes of the liberal left?

Oh wait, it isn't...............

oldsaw wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: You might be right. Tea partiers think they are libertarians. But they aren't. They just think they are better qualified than others to determine what liberties we don't deserve.

The same can be said for OWS minions and they are no better qualified than Tea Partiers. Unless one agrees with one or the other.

Well that we can certainly agree on. I sympathize with both OWS and the TP, but they both seemed to lose focus once they gained a little traction. Actually, OWS didn't really have much focus to lose but they did seem to meander from their original blurry message.

I'd just like to point out of how it is so weird religion and right-wing politics go hand in hand in your guys' world.

I'm not saying it isn't like that here, but there is WAY less religion in our politics period.

the two are odd bedfellows, HiTemp. The right wing embraced the church several decades ago and the partnership has just gotten stronger and stronger.

Sometimes I think it is something that holds the right back.. because several people I know who are highly conservative.. are NOT christian

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to FlightService: You might be right. Tea partiers think they are libertarians. But they aren't. They just think they are better qualified than others to determine what liberties we don't deserve. Ron Paul is closer to Libertarian than tea party, I think.

Yeah but the Tea Baggers love him. Don't know why. Besides they aren't even a party just a faction of the Republican'ts.

Didn't the Damacraps have one back in the Strom Thurmond days, the Dixiecrats?

In reply to mad_machine:

Count me among that group. I'm not a Republican simply due to their ties with the religious right wing. I'm not a Democrat, either, because I hate being half wrong all the time.

I must say I'm really hoping that Gary Johnson gets the nomination. He seems the least crazy of the crop, and I'd vote for him over Obama.

FlightService wrote:

Alex, I'll take FlightService is FOS for $1000, please.

Oh, look it's a Daily Double...........

I say a Ronald Reagan Zomby Channeling Nixon through Eisenhower by way of Harry Truman. Zombys rule, correct?

oldsaw wrote: I'm a Libertarian at heart but I'm also a pragmatic voter. Ron Paul, even though I (philosphically) support his stance, just isn't the best person to challenge an incumbent President and carry the election. In good faith, I have a fundamental disagreement with the direction (and attitude) Obama has used to steer the course of this country. I'm supporting a viable, win-capable alternative even when it requires holding the nose and swallowing distasteful medicine.

Yep, pretty much. I did a lot of soul-searching in the last election because I couldn't vote for either of the two major party talking heads. I voted my conscience (Libertarian) even though I knew it wouldn't help. However, having seen the damage that Obama/Pelosi/Reed have done I realize my vote would have been better being simply cast against him. I saw the warning signs, but chose to ignore them. That voting against someone who is ill-suited to run the country, to protect that country, can be a viable voting mission is something I have now learned. I don't like it, but since I have virtually no vote in the primaries (WHY aren't they held on the same day everywhere? Why do a half dozen states get to set a precedent?) my vote comes down to "damage control" more than electing whom I feel is best.

Oh, and add me to the list of people who thinks Huntsman is the best choice out of the remaining GOP hopefuls.

The problem with Huntsman is he's just not electable. That's because he doesn't have the charisma that the average room temp IQ voter looks for.

I swear the country gets to looking more and more like Idiocracy every day.

I lost all faith in Gingrich when he did that stupid global warming crap ad with Pelosi. He let me know he does not think for himself but does what he thinks will make him look better to the voters. I heard he said he regrets making that ad now, yeah, I wonder why, lol. He knows he screwed up with the conservative voters. I dont care who gets the the nomination, Ill vote for anyone other than Nobama.

Curmudgeon wrote: The problem with Huntsman is he's just not electable. That's because he doesn't have the charisma that the average room temp IQ voter looks for. I swear the country gets to looking more and more like Idiocracy every day.

How about Trump's plan to host a debate and crown "his" nominee, reality show style. And if his nominee isn't the actual nominee, the pumpkin pie haircutted freak plans to enter the fray as a third party candidate.

Idiocracy indeed.

OMFGWTFBBQ my stepdad says he wishes Trump would get the nomination. He says that would guarantee Obama a second term even if he were to get busted on tape for buggering little boys. I have to say I agree with him.

Gingrich is probably the smartest of the GOP bunch but his morals and pandering give me pause. I have a lot more respect for someone who, even if I don't like their stance on something, has the courage of their convictions. That's what I always liked about McCain (and no I am not talking about Cain) but of course he will not be part of this circus. For that matter, that's what I liked about Colin Powell too.

oldsaw wrote:

FlightService wrote:

Alex, I'll take FlightService is FOS for $1000, please. Oh, look it's a Daily Double...........

Your simplistic attempt at humor aside, do you not find it odd that the Tea Party has taken the social issue position of the fanatic right? I was hoping to have a party that focused on issues.

Unemplyement Debt Defense government waste country direction in general.

Not a line straight out of communist manifesto where we focus on social issues to distract us from the role of government and their real responsibility.

So as a rebuttal to your quip, I shall paraphrase.

"Mr. Oldsaw, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

In reply to FlightService:

OK, based on your Billy Madison quote, I am thinking maybe you caught my "pumpkin pie haircutted freak" reference.

In reply to FlightService:

Just my opinion, but I think you're still running at full capacity.

One can easily find some Tea Partiers who fit your perception. To ascribe those "qualities" to all reveals more about you than those you try to ridicule. And by applying your standards, the entire OWS movement consists of anarchistic, drug-addled, thieving, sexual predators.

Broad brush assignations may work for you. For me, not so much. Sorry...........

when I first heard about the tea party, I was interested. I liked the idea of less government "bloat" and intrusion.. but once the fanatics climbed aboard, I decided I had better things to do.

If only we could jettison the fanatics on both sides so we can get this country back on track

Saw on the news this morning (Dec. 6th) that Michelle Bachman had called the other candidates "flawed". (I guess now that Herman Cain looks like he has dropped out, she feels safe criticizing him?)

My first thought: Ms. Bachman, go look in a mirror. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

integraguy wrote: Saw on the news this morning (Dec. 6th) that Michelle Bachman had called the other candidates "flawed". (I guess now that Herman Cain looks like he has dropped out, she feels safe criticizing him?) My first thought: Ms. Bachman, go look in a mirror. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

I don't understand how anyone takes her seriously.

FlightService wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

FlightService wrote:

Alex, I'll take FlightService is FOS for $1000, please. Oh, look it's a Daily Double...........

Your simplistic attempt at humor aside, do you not find it odd that the Tea Party has taken the social issue position of the fanatic right? I was hoping to have a party that focused on issues. Unemplyement Debt Defense government waste country direction in general. Not a line straight out of communist manifesto where we focus on social issues to distract us from the role of government and their real responsibility. So as a rebuttal to your quip, I shall paraphrase. "Mr. Oldsaw, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

FlightService,

Your flight surgeon called…you’ve been grounded due to rant provoked hypoxia and media spin induced spatial disorientation.

Joking aside, the Tea Party has forced us to take stock of our reckless spending…how could any honest, intelligent person not see that as a good thing.

I really don’t have much of an opinion on the other attributes you associate the Tea Party with and ridicule oldsaw for…I don’t care, stopping the insane pissing away of money is absolutely mission critical to me and I call anyone that shares my commitment friend.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to FlightService: OK, based on your Billy Madison quote, I am thinking maybe you caught my "pumpkin pie haircutted freak" reference.

Maybe

RX Reven' wrote: FlightService, Your flight surgeon called…you’ve been grounded due to rant provoked hypoxia and media spin induced spatial disorientation. Joking aside, the Tea Party has forced us to take stock of our reckless spending…how could any honest, intelligent person not see that as a good thing. I really don’t have much of an opinion on the other attributes you associate the Tea Party with and ridicule oldsaw for…I don’t care, stopping the insane pissing away of money is absolutely mission critical to me and I call anyone that shares my commitment friend.

The tea party did originate on reckless spending which is good, but their social agenda and how that has become a very focal part of their organization is of great concern.

The Republicans and Democrats also have their good points, but it is what they focus on is THE issue with this country.