Originally Posted By JohnS1 I think we should follow the suggestion of Matt Groening as evidenced in his TV series "Futrurama." We should go ahead and elect the resuscitated head of Richard Nixon as president.
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd BTW... I am not so sure Huckabee's Pakistan border comment is that out of line... He was using the incident to draw a parallel to our own situation. While his timing was not very good (it would have been better to simply offer condolences and denounce the act, and then make the parallel at a later date), He makes a valid, if poorly worded point... not that bizarre as is made out above. He was simply saying that the border situation in India and Pakistan is similar to our Mexico border problem: hard to monitor and control who comes in and goes out. People with terrorist or criminal agendas know this, and take advantage of it. I may be wrong, but isn't this the whole reason most countries have border guards to begin with? Bad guys are always jumping the border to commit crimes or escape punishment. Or to take unfair advantage of situations across the line... such as when a child gets born in the USA, instant citizenship, and instant benefits. Lots of people want to make a tightening of the borders into a racist argument, and there are certainly enough dumb people out there to buy the argument as the sole reason someone would support it. It ain't so. Bottom Line: Mexico doesn't make sufficient effort to control their own citizens, nor does it make sufficient effort to keep track of dangerous people passing thru their country to access ours. So, our government leaders try to come up with band-aid solutions like building walls instead of really doing what needs to be done. We do not need walls to keep out Mexico-born laborers. We need them like crazy. Our economy depends on 'em. Restaraunts, farms, menial jobs that we do not have sufficient workers to perform. And don't believe the argument that "They get the benefit of coming to California, but don't pay taxes." They do... because lots of them supply fake SS numbers, which takes money out of their checks, and puts it into the already underfunded SS program. And even if they don't file income tax forms, lots of them still get deductions taken out. On top of that, they buy stuff while here, which has sales tax added, and ba-da-bing, our state gets additional cash. No, the problem is that we have bad guys who want to come in to the US for bad reasons (like terrorists), or bad guys in the US who want to hide on the other side of the border to stay out of jail (like the idiot doctor who swapped human eggs at the UCI fertility clinic in the 80's). So, all of this is a long way of saying Huckabee was trying, ever so awkwardly, to turn a bad thing elsewhere into a reason why we need more control here. It was, for sure, a big flub for him to do, and it sure has worked against him. But it wasn't the worst thing I have ever heard in this election.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I just don't like the idea of a recovering addict being arguably the most powerful man in the world. " Kennedy took cocaine while President. That's where the horse piss comment actually comes from. Others Presidents illegally used liquor during prohibition. I think I'd rather simply have someone COMPETENT in office. You'd rather see someone go into office and further damage or destroy our nation? What kind of foolish concept is that? That's really very stupid. Put someone in office who will do a good job. For once. What the hell is wrong with people in this country when the public can't figure out this very basic idea?
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Again, I agree, Jon. It is getting very hard to identify the right guy. Your Ron Paul analysis is very good. I appreciate it.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 There is no proof whatsoever that Obama would do a good job. To be quite fair, there is not 1 Republican Candidate which excites me this year, and the Dmeocrat side is the same way. We have crap to choose from this election, so regardless we are going to have a poor leader elected as President.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I mean as much as I hate Hillary Clinton, if I was forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, I would support Hillary Clinton and watch the military be destroyed, than have Obama in the White House. >> I hope you realize that the military has been destroyed more by the Bush White House than any previous administration. All the Armed Services are bankrupt in resources -- monetary, intellectual, manpower, etc. The cost of the Iraq debacle has yet to be determined for the U.S. military. We can't even afford to pay the coming Iraq War head injury bill without cutting military funding back significantly in the years ahead. I don't know when the idea that Republicans are good for the military will finally run it's course. These are the same people that would rather pay Blackwater contracters six figure paychecks to provide security in Iraq side-by-side with the volunteer force that doesn't even make 1/3 of what the contractor gets paid. That sends a really good message about support for the troops, doesn't it?
Originally Posted By Mr X **I just don't like the idea of a recovering addict being arguably the most powerful man in the world** I don't understand your use of the phrase "recovering addict" here. Clinton smoked pot. Is he a recovering addict too? Or are certain drugs more significant in your mind or something? (here's a clue on the whole issue...not everyone who drinks some beer is a "recovering alcoholic", and not everyone who does a few lines is a "recovering addict"...unless there was some news story about Obama in rehab that I missed?)
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I hope you realize that the military has been destroyed more by the Bush White House than any previous administration. All the Armed Services are bankrupt in resources -- monetary, intellectual, manpower, etc. The cost of the Iraq debacle has yet to be determined for the U.S. military. We can't even afford to pay the coming Iraq War head injury bill without cutting military funding back significantly in the years ahead.<< I am talking in terms of how much I am getting paid when I made those comments. During the Bill Clinton tenure, the military suffered through abismal pay raises, and a draw down which saw our best leaders basically forced out. Only through the past years of Republican rule have the pay scales of the military balanced out with a job in the private workforce.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << During the Bill Clinton tenure, the military suffered through abismal pay raises, and a draw down which saw our best leaders basically forced out. Only through the past years of Republican rule have the pay scales of the military balanced out with a job in the private workforce. >> Are you kidding? Military pay raises exceeded the rate of inflation by a large amount throughout the Clinton Administration -- after years of languishing pay and benefits all throughout the 80s with Reagan/Bush. In fact, your pay raise in the past few years has largely mimicked inflation and nothing else. There was even a study conducted by Rumsfeld to try and figure out how to cut back on the military pay raises and benefits -- not politically viable when the nation is a war, though. Of course, if you are basing your perception of military readiness on your own paycheck, I suggest you find a different metric.
Originally Posted By Mr X **We have crap to choose from this election, so regardless we are going to have a poor leader elected as President.** My personal opinion on this is that it can't possibly (yes, I'm serious) get any worse. I mean, seriously. Name the worst politician you can possibly conceive of (a real person with at least the remote potential to get elected, please) and I'll make a convincing argument that he/she is better than the sitting president. William, I don't know if you want this info or not, but if your Dad is still struggling with trying to quit whatever he was on, and is maybe relying on weird cults or something to try and get there (I'm guessing so, only because of some of your wording in this topic)...might I suggest rationalrecovery.com? It's a great resource, if he might need it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "There is no proof whatsoever that Obama would do a good job." I don't think I ever said there was. Quite the opposite, actually. I did say that making up reasons to exclude people who would do a good job is wrong headed. It is destructive, and we are keeping the best people from the job, and are now only electing those who are second or third rate.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Only through the past years of Republican rule have the pay scales of the military balanced out with a job in the private workforce. >> What kind of job? By a number of metrics, there is absolutely no way a soldier, sailor, or airmen that has a middling high school eduction, no skills, and no work experience can match the pay and benefits that the armed forced provide to a very large percentage of its work force. The equivalent job in the civilian sector for 3/4 of the military's work force is an hourly job at Wal-Mart.
Originally Posted By Mr X **During the Bill Clinton tenure, the military suffered through abismal pay raises, and a draw down which saw our best leaders basically forced out.** Maybe it was a concerted effort to weed out the Vietnam holdouts. I can only imagine that would be the "best leaders" you are talking about, based on age and seniority. If so, it was probably a good idea. Heck, every team gets mad when the coach gets fired right? But usually the owner has the right idea (Cowboys, Patriots, etc...).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I disagree heavy cocaine use as a teenager is worse than minor use of marijuana or even extra-maritial affairs. My dad is a recovering addict and he still has urges to this day. He has said himself, you never fully break free of the binds of drugs. Is that really someone we want in the White House?> Serious question: did Obama actually say he was an "addict?" Or just that he used? FWIW, I believe Bush II has indeed admitted to being an alcoholic. That is generally thought to be a harder addiction to break than cocaine, and of course would be far more accessible to a president. So by that reasoning we never should have elected Bush. (Well, we never should have, but not for that reason.)
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< William, I don't know if you want this info or not, but if your Dad is still struggling with trying to quit whatever he was on, and is maybe relying on weird cults or something to try and get there (I'm guessing so, only because of some of your wording in this topic) >>> Are you referring to AA?
