Originally Posted By onlyme I enjoyed watching the debates last night. Ron Paul...wacko. He sounds ridiculous Hillary looked so frustrated and irritated. She still can't believe that she didn't win Iowa. Watching her speak, it's as though, she wants to reach her hands through the TV screen and tell us, "What's wrong with you idiots, don't you know that I'm supposed to be winning". The picture of her, her husband, Madeline Albright, and Clark, taken at her 'victory' speech last Thursday, is only causing voters to understand that, with her, it'll be the same 'ol, same 'ol. But, she doesn't get it. Hillary, get rid of Bill, for your own sake. Watching the news before Iowa, you'd swear that there was not even a need for an election; it was Hillary, hands down. Yea, right... Obama sounds/looks good. So does McCain. Even though Romney took up half the debate, I just don't like him. Huckabee had a good start, but I doubt it will continue. In short...Obama and McCain. Anyone seen that 'Obama Girl'. Yea, she's a bit ditzee, but she's hot.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Ron Paul...wacko. He sounds ridiculous >> Ron Paul speaks more truth than any of the candidates on either side of the coin. He's not polished enough to be president and his delivery is lacking. But if you want to understand the heart of our problems in America, I think you would be wise to actually pay attention to what this man says. His commentary about the devaluation of the dollar and how it has impacted oil prices in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world was spot on. << Obama sounds/looks good. >> Good characteristics if you are running for Prom King, but I'm not so sure about President of the U.S. Of course, the American people elected a completely incompetent POTUS the last two rounds, so I have little hope that they'll do any better this time. << The picture of her, her husband, Madeline Albright, and Clark, taken at her 'victory' speech last Thursday, is only causing voters to understand that, with her, it'll be the same 'ol, same 'ol. But, she doesn't get it. Hillary, get rid of Bill, for your own sake. >> I would gladly go back to the Clinton era in a heartbeat compared to what we have come to endure in the past 7 years. In particular, the supply-side economics under Bush have pretty much dismantled the U.S. economy to the point where no one is going to be able to fix it all that quickly. Even the mainstream media is running headlines about recession now -- which probably means we're already in one since they are usually the last to report. However, I'm more concerned about a Japan-style depression that will really cause a lot of hardship here. I noticed that Hillary Clinton was the only candidate out of both Democrats or Republicans who mentioned the state of the U.S. economy during the entire evening.
Originally Posted By onlyme Well, obviously, we have different viewpoints. I hear what you're saying, though. And, I really DID listen to Paul. I know that when he stated it was the fault of the US for the 9/11 attacks(our 'occupation' in Saudi Arabia), that many would pat him on the back for that. I'm sure that'll garner him a few votes. Regarding Hillary (and, btw, I don't know who I'll be voting for), she's harming herself big time. People don't want to go back to the 'old' days. They want a fresh change. She does not/will not offer this. She talks about change, but as long as she keeps hanging around yesterdays news, few are believing what she is saying. And, what's this I keep hearing her say about her 35 years of experience. So, as first lady, she had a security clearance, and was involved in national matters. Hardly. It's been the case that those with 'too much' experience, just don't win presidential elections. I really don't know who is advising her, but she needs to make some changes, quickly. Obama for Prom King? I don't know, but people seem to like him. They see change when they look at him. but I don't know enough about him, yet, to make any judgments. Anyway, it should be interesting.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< But if you want to understand the heart of our problems in America, I think you would be wise to actually pay attention to what this man says. >>> Or maybe pay attention to what he does. He calls for abolishing the IRS within the first week of office, saying that the federal government is involved in way more things than it should be. But when it comes to the spending side, his district has more earmarks than any other district from his area. By "his district" I mean the one for which he is the current Congressman. When asked about this, he said something like "Yea, I requested the earmarks, but then I voted NO on the overall spending bill that authorized the budget." Of course, his NO vote was with full knowledge that the spending bill, and therefore his earmarks, would pass. "I voted yes before I voted no!" - who does that remind you of? It's been argued that earmarks don't actually increase spending - they just redirect money that's otherwise authorized. So it might be possible to say earmarks aren't all bad even if you believe the role of the federal government is way too large. But it's hard to make that argument when some of your earmarks are for the renovation of a historical theater in a tiny rural town or marketing of the local wild shrimp catch. If one were truly interested in reducing the scale of the federal government, those types of activities would clearly be local in nature and not deserving of federal help. Ron Paul is also at the forefront of the "abolish the Federal Reserve" movement. Perhaps he thinks that Congress would be able to better manage the nation's money supply, what with its track record of handling money? He'll get a good percentage of the kook vote, that's for sure. The people that think that total collapse of the nation and currency is just around the corner, and who are stockpiling Krugerrands underneath their mattress along with a few thousand extra rounds, probably think he's the greatest candidate ever.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 The funniest quote from Hillary after Iowa was a retort to Obama's claim to represent change. What she said was something like - "I'm the real change candidate. I've represented change for 35 years!" Anybody besides me see the inherent contradiction and humor in that statement?
Originally Posted By Mr X **The people that think that total collapse of the nation and currency is just around the corner, and who are stockpiling Krugerrands underneath their mattress along with a few thousand extra rounds, probably think he's the greatest candidate ever.** ROTFL!! And, speaking of kooks, hey Sport Goofy...I've got some websites you might like to check out, they are BIG fans of Ron Paul!
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but I also don't think he necessarily has to be a "kook."
