INDIGESTION 2008...t & Zed approved

Open discussion about the world we live in today. Topics in here can get heated, but please keep it civil.

Moderator: Priests of Syrinx

User avatar
awip2062
Posts: 25518
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:15 am
Contact:

INDIGESTION 2008...t & Zed approved

Post by awip2062 »

Okay, so Romney has now suspended his campaign.

McCain seems sure to get the Republican nomination, but Huckabee still has his hat in the ring, as does Ron Paul, and Romney will still hold on to his delegates and can come back, until he drops out or someone else wins the nomination.

Obama and Clinton are four delegates apart.

There ARE other parties, however, who are looking at putting forth candidates. I went to see who is in the running now and for whom.


The Constitution Party has three declared candidates and Ron Paul is also being considered as being put under the Constitution Party banner if he doesn't get the Republican nomination (answered my own question, Xanny :-) ).

The Green Party has four candidates and are looking at drafting Nader.

The Libertarian Party has nine declared candidates and are also asking Ron Paul to run under their banner if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. They also have two self-declared candidates.

The Prohibition Party has one candidate, and he was interviewed by Glenn Beck today on the radio.

Likewise, the Socialist Party has one candidate.

There are 27 declared Independent candidates, with one draft candidate, and three self-declared candidates including Nader and Sam Nunn.

Just so you know the whole field.

So, now what DO we do?

:?
Onward and Upward!
User avatar
ElfDude
Posts: 11085
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
Contact:

Re: Decision 2008

Post by ElfDude »

awip2062 wrote: So, now what DO we do?

:?
Obviously you pose this question to the conservative readers. The lieberal readers should be thrilled because McCain/Clinton/Obama is just a win win situation for them.... all three are liberals.

And I'm not ready to comment, as I'm still clouded with emotion. Gotta think for a while.

But you KNOW I'll comment. :)
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
Image
CygnusX1
Posts: 17306
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: We don't call 911 here.

Post by CygnusX1 »

Green Party/Libertarian here....I is what I is. :roll: :lol:

Interesting sidebar here...

Ron Paul has won, like, 25 straw polls....I'm pretty sure he's gonna be
a spoiler before this thing's done.
Don't start none...won't be none.
User avatar
ElfDude
Posts: 11085
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
Contact:

Post by ElfDude »

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, rallying conservatives for a battle against Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, says "prosperity and peace" are at stake in the upcoming election for his successor.
Those two things are indeed at stake. And McCain is in no position to claim he'll help with either one.

Prosperity: The McCain/Lieberman bill proposes new global warming taxes (including an additional 50 cents a gallon in gasoline taxes) that would cost Americans an estimated 1.2 trillion dollars! That is not the road to prosperity.

Peace: How can we hope to have peace with open borders and amnesty as would have been brought to us by the McCain/Kennedy bill? Yeah, McCain has been tough about the overseas portion of the war on terrorism, but an open border is an even bigger threat to our security. He's started to talk like he's changing his tune, but the fact that he has Juan Hernandez as a top advisor blows all credibility for him. Actions speak louder than words.


Yeah, Hillary is basically Stalin without the 50 million dead people in her wake, but this guy is no solution either. When it comes to economics, Obama is also a hard-core socialist. McCain now claims to be in favor of tax cuts but voted against them and proposes huge tax hikes in his bills. Can anyone ever name for me a country that has taxed itself into prosperity?

I'm sorry president Bush, but if I vote my conscience it can't be for McCain.

What to do? Still trying to work this one out.
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
Image
CygnusX1
Posts: 17306
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: We don't call 911 here.

Post by CygnusX1 »

ElfDude wrote:
Prosperity: The McCain/Lieberman bill proposes new global warming taxes (including an additional 50 cents a gallon in gasoline taxes) that would cost Americans an estimated 1.2 trillion dollars! That is not the road to prosperity.
Sure it is Elf....just not for taxpayers. :roll: :x
Don't start none...won't be none.
User avatar
Xanadu
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: My vortex.

Post by Xanadu »

ElfDude wrote:What to do? Still trying to work this one out.
Pssstt!...Ron Paul man :-D
We're all mad here!
User avatar
Xanadu
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: My vortex.

Post by Xanadu »

We're all mad here!
User avatar
ElfDude
Posts: 11085
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
Contact:

Post by ElfDude »

Xanadu wrote:
ElfDude wrote:What to do? Still trying to work this one out.
Pssstt!...Ron Paul man :-D
As much as I like the man, he doesn't have a prayer. Not to be the Republican nominee anyway.

While driving to work this morning I heard Steven Covey make an appearance on a local radio show. He's written a lot of books but this conversation was based on his book entitled The Speed of Trust. He said that there are four questions we should ask ourselves about any candidate we might be considering. I liked them and was suddenly trying to take notes in the car so I wouldn't forget them.

1. Do I trust this person to tell the truth?

2. Do I trust the motives of this candidate? In other words, will he/she always put the good of the country first or is he/she doing this in order to gain prestige or power or something like that?

3. Do I trust this person's abilities as a leader?

4. Do I trust this person based on their track record?

More commentay on these questions later. Yours is welcomed and would be appreciated by me.
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
Image
User avatar
awip2062
Posts: 25518
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:15 am
Contact:

Post by awip2062 »

ElfDude wrote:
Xanadu wrote:
ElfDude wrote:What to do? Still trying to work this one out.
Pssstt!...Ron Paul man :-D
As much as I like the man, he doesn't have a prayer. Not to be the Republican nominee anyway.
Stuff having a prayer, as far as becoming the Republican nominee.

I mean, come on! We know that McCain isn't a conservative. So many in this nation seem to be wringing their hands fussing over what to do, what to do because the Dems and Repubs have become so alike. And then they turn around and refuse to look at options other than the Dems or Repubs. Now, I know you have voted for third party candidates before, Elf, but your response above is just like the people who refuse to vote for anyone other than the two parties who have a strangle-hold on us.

What this nation needs to do is quit looking at who is going to win. WHY do we choose our candidate by whether or not he can get the votes? Listen to the people and while you do hear about issues, how often do you hear, "Yeah, I would really like (insert whoever) but he can't win, so I won't vote for him"? and then the person turns around and votes for someone who continues to destroy our nation?

Listen to Covey. Vote your conscience.

What we need to do is vote our consciences.
Onward and Upward!
User avatar
ElfDude
Posts: 11085
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
Contact:

Post by ElfDude »

awip2062 wrote: Listen to Covey. Vote your conscience.

What we need to do is vote our consciences.
Okay, let's apply Covey's questions to Ron Paul (in case he ends up on the ballot somehow or other)...

1. I think he tells the truth.

2. I believe his motives for running are because he is concerned for the country, not because he wants power.

3. Abilities as a leader... I don't honestly know. But I could give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

4. Track record. He's been a good congressman (for the most part...). He has a good voting record, except on something that I think is extremely important. I think he's GREAT on the economy. He also wants to immediately dismantle the FBI and the CIA. Sorry, we need those organizations.

He's downright frightening on foreign policiy.

His campaign promise is to bring home American forces from EVERYWHERE that they havebeen deployed. Some parts of that I can agree with. Like Germany. we don't need to be there. Korea? That's debatable. The middle east? Absolutely not. As much as some want to deny it, we have been attacked by that part of the world and we are at war with them. We either continue to fight them on their turf or we get attacked here again immediately (they're still working on that anyway, but it's not by chance that we haven't had another 9/11... not yet at least). I love the man, but I just can't vote for the candidate who wants to secure our defeat in the middle east.

So... voting for him wouldn't be voting my consience either, even though I really appreciate his honesty.
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
Image
User avatar
awip2062
Posts: 25518
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:15 am
Contact:

Post by awip2062 »

So you keep looking then.
Onward and Upward!
CygnusX1
Posts: 17306
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: We don't call 911 here.

Post by CygnusX1 »

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older
ones) didn't know this...

It's easy to check out if you don't believe it.


Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history
lesson on what's what, and it doesn't matter whether you are
Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Our (USA) Social Security System

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security
(FICA) Program.

He promised:

1. That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2. That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first
$1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3. That the money the participants elected to put into the Program
would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4. That the money the participants put into the independent
"Trust Fund" rather than into the general operating fund, would
only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,

5. That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.

But WAIT.....There's MORE.....


Since many have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving
a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that they
are getting taxed on 85% of the money they paid to the Federal government to "put away" -
- you may be interested in the following:

-------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House
and Senate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for
Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote
as President of the Senate, while
he was Vice President of the US.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments
to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
(Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to
receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave
these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your
Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be
planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, as some
Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.

AND MY FAVORITE:

CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY
SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Don't start none...won't be none.
User avatar
awip2062
Posts: 25518
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:15 am
Contact:

Post by awip2062 »

Reminds me of the bumper sticker:

Image

;-)
Onward and Upward!
User avatar
Xanadu
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: My vortex.

Post by Xanadu »

No offense Elfy but I hate it when people say they won't vote for a man because he "doesn't have a chance"...he won't have a chance if people who say that won't vote for him. He has just as much chance as any other candidate if people vote for him.

For example: Hitler is running for the democratic party, Saddam for the republican and Ron Paul as a libertarian...so hmmmm I guess I shouldn't vote for Ron Paul if Hitler or Saddam have a better chance.... :shock:

Also, that very fact that we are over there policing the middle east is provoking those bastards to attack us, just wait...the very fact that we were over there before (BUSH #1) is why they attacked us. If we had secure borders like Ron Paul is all about then that is far less likely and especially if we weren't over there policing.

Besides all of that, THIS WAR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Does that not mean any thing to anyone? Do you care about the constitution???? Is it OK THAT OUR PRESIDENT SAID FUCK THE CONSTITUTION?

Border Protection
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?ta ... Protection

National Defense
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?ta ... %20Defense
We're all mad here!
User avatar
ElfDude
Posts: 11085
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
Contact:

Post by ElfDude »

Xanadu wrote:No offense Elfy but I hate it when people say they won't vote for a man because he "doesn't have a chance"...
Perhaps I should clarify. What he doesn't have a chance of is getting his name on the ballot. I've voted for plenty of candidates that were on the ballot who didn't have a chance of winning, including Ron Paul in 1988.
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
Image
Post Reply