Presidential Race Discussion (Romney NOOO!!!)
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
rhodesia123
New Member
at this rate i dont care who gets elected b/c its impossible to have a worse prez than bush. thank goodness for the 2 term limit. theres no where to go but up!
-lickylicky
-lickylicky
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Yes, it is possible. Just use your imagination, and you'll see that I'm right.
The Captain
New Member
in all honest yes , better than being weak of course thats ban to but it's much much better
homeofmew
Active Member
:thumb::smile::lol:
I think you are right there. The only good thing about Hilary Clinton is that she is pro Isreal. (ie will support them )
rhodesia123
New Member
clinton was one of the few presidents to get us out of the national debt. i would assume his wife will use some of his good ideas. i dont get how you people could say she would be a bad president.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
He (read: not "he," but the entirety of government) created a surplus, but at what price?
The only true, honest way to lower the debt is by reducing _spending_, and not by taxing further.
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
How is raising taxes to pay the debt dishonest?
Articjedi
Active Member
Not to mention, basing all of your solutions on original intent, or any other narrow thinking, basically narrows your options. When you hit a problem that original intent can't solve, you're in trouble.
Besides, if you kept on lowering (edit: taxes, this is what happens when you type half awake) to the point where you ran up a huge deficit, you get more inflation.
Anyway, let's save the economics arguments for a different topic. WA caucuses are tomorrow, and why isn't anyone really talking about the democratic party? Are the republicans the only people on the board?
Besides, if you kept on lowering (edit: taxes, this is what happens when you type half awake) to the point where you ran up a huge deficit, you get more inflation.
Anyway, let's save the economics arguments for a different topic. WA caucuses are tomorrow, and why isn't anyone really talking about the democratic party? Are the republicans the only people on the board?
Last edited:
ninetales1234
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
Yes, strong people don't ever cry! Men don't cry! If you're a good government official, you don't cry!
I think that's some bad reasoning. Of all things you could be talking about, you want to talk about crying? Are you just listening to all the stories the TV news media are spoon-feeding you? Do some research. What about her destructive policies? With all the policies she supports and you want to criticize her for crying? (for example) She supports conscription, which is just nice way of saying slavery, and you want to tell us she's a bad government official because she cried? You don't like her because she did something that ninety-nine point-something percent of people have done at some point in their life?
If you'd like some evidence that crying or lack of crying has nothing to do with how good a government official is, think about all the brutal totalitarian dictators throughout history, who were not known for crying in public.
EDIT: Keep in mind that a rule of thumb for presidential campaigns is "there is a camera watching you all the time". You have to assume it. And if there is a camera watching you all the time, you are liable to be seen scratching yourself, picking your nose, something you don't want on camera, etc.
Last edited:
Here is your unlimited 2nd Amendment in action, keeping the government in check by use of arms:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4261556
Per your argument, this guy is a good citizen and should be applauded.
Note, the Democrats, contrary to what Right Wing Radio and the NRA drums into peoples heads, does NOT want to eliminate the 2nd Amendment or eliminate people's right to bear arms.
What they DO want to do is to use some intelligence in limiting who gets to bear arms (people who are INSANE, for example, can bear arms!) and limit purchases to personal use instead of allowing people to buy amounts of weapons that can only be done if they are reselling them on the street to criminals.
Look at Philadelphia.
Half a dozen cops killed this year already and the rural part of the state is blocking the city from putting sensible gun laws into effect in it's own area.
There needs to be Gun Control. A moderate stance.
Not gun elimination preventing good citizens from having their reasonable amount of guns and rifles.
Not unlimited guns for every lunatic on the street.
Why can't there be a middle ground on this issue? People are dying in incredible numbers in the US.
I had a nice discussion about this last night with some of the RA's on my staff. One of them having almost the exact opposite views as me (he's republican, I'm democrat), but we got into the subject of talking about Hillary Clinton. He was telling me that a lot of his friends who are REP are really intrigued by a woman in office, and if their republican candidate doesn't win, they are half tempted to vote for her. I don't see how an expression of emotions shows weakness in a person. Yes, she'd been on the road for a while with no sleep, but that would take a toll on anyone. Men have been so conditioned by the media that they have learned that crying is a sign of weakness. Far from it. I respect a man who is able to cry in front of people. That shows me that they are comfortable enough with themselves, and they could honestly care less what other people think. I think Hillary is the same way. She's a strong woman, and no one can deny that. New York is a heck of a state to govern. She's a real person that doesn't have this media personality that a lot of the others are showing. I'd rather have someone with a sense of humor and a real personality win, than someone who thinks they always have to act in front of a camera.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Eh, both of you guys are right.
'Pop, you essentially get how things should work: people deserve guns, but control needs to exist. However, that doesn't disprove Homeofmew's point: there are "way" more members or associates of the Democratic party that believe in _no_ gun rights.
It's a shame that Rudy Giuliani actually "lost" votes over his gun control policy, because it was actually the most compromising out of anyone on _either_ side of the aisle.
The man in the article was the one who initiated force, and should not therefore be hereld as a hero.
Crazy people have the ability to bear arms, but that does not force gun sellers to sell them a gun.
A funny quote a remember hearing a while ago went "Q: Why do you carry a gun? A: Incase I need to shoot something". If everyone had guns, would anyone DARE to try to kill someone in the open? I should think not.
Crazy people have the ability to bear arms, but that does not force gun sellers to sell them a gun.
A funny quote a remember hearing a while ago went "Q: Why do you carry a gun? A: Incase I need to shoot something". If everyone had guns, would anyone DARE to try to kill someone in the open? I should think not.
No offense, but that's just plain stupid.
No other way to put it.
Did this guy get killed?
Why yes, he did.
So apparently HE dared to shoot people with armed people (police) nearby.
So, where does that put your argument?
The same number of people would be dead.
"that doesn't force gun sellers to sell them a gun"
So, why are they doing it then?
What the heck does that mean?
They are selling anyone and everyone a gun that they can.
Sure, there are responsible gun sellers.
But it doesn't take very many who don't care who they sell to to get as many guns on the street as the criminals can want.
Your statements hold no water.