Cole: Be Warned, Republicans

[Janett_Reno]

You got to love this, Rep. Tom Cole, of the Republicans tells it like it is and after the fact, now Republicans see that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield and the neocon adm has destroyed the Republican party. McCain has an uphill battle. Ms winning some Democrat seats? Wow, i bet the Republicans are thinking of another job besides politicians. He is bascially telling them that the one liners are over. You know, the faith and values speaches. It took these neocon Republicans to get us in the mess we are in and it will take the Democrats to get us out of the mess and back on track. I am very curious who Obama will pick for his vice to help put us back on the right track and make America strong again. Oh, here is the article....

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


http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...epublicans.php

A fairly remarkable statement from the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Tom Cole, about tonight's special election in Mississippi. He's warning his incumbents and challengers: change or die.

We are disappointed in tonight’s election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short.
“Tonight’s election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must overcome this November. First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats’ task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all Republicans.
“Second, the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short.
“I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn out voters this election.”

[Janett_Reno]

Mississippi Win Gives House Dems Three Victories In A Row...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_101613.html

It's becoming a disturbing trend for Republicans: losing traditional GOP strongholds to Democrats in some hard-fought congressional races.

It happened again Tuesday, as Travis Childers beat Greg Davis in a special election to replace Republican Roger Wicker, who served in the House since 1994 and was appointed to the U.S. Senate to fill the seat vacated by Trent Lott.

Childers' win will give him the chance over the next several months left in the seat's two-year term to build a fundraising and publicity advantage as he heads into November's general election. He will again face Davis, as well as two other opponents.

Childers' win gave Democrats a 236-199 edge over Republicans in Congress.

Earlier this year, Democrats captured the Illinois district long represented by former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert, who resigned from Congress. This month, Democrats claimed a seat in Louisiana that Republican Rep. Richard Baker vacated and that the GOP had held since 1974.

Childers is a socially conservative county official, while Davis is mayor of a fast-growing city across the state line from Memphis, Tenn.

Vice President Dick Cheney campaigned for Davis the day before the special election, and Davis ran ads trying to tie Childers to Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the national Democratic Party's policies.

Childers stressed his independence, emphasizing his support of gun rights and opposition to abortion. He said his values match those of most voters in the deeply conservative district.

Tom Cole, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the Mississippi race showed that "Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority."

Cole said voters are "pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general" and the GOP must offer "positive change."

Marty Wiseman, a political scientist at Mississippi State University, said if Democrats can carry districts that traditionally have been safe bets for the GOP, "Republican strategists have to be terrified."

"If you think about the House and the Senate ... and the number of Republican Senate seats that are exposed, this could turn into something bigger than the presidential race this fall," Wiseman said.

Elsewhere, in right-leaning Nebraska, Republican Mike Johanns, the former U.S. agriculture secretary and Nebraska governor, easily won the Republican primary Tuesday in a race to replace retiring Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel. On the Democrat side, Scott Kleeb beat three other Democrats.

And in West Virginia, a conflict-of-interest scandal derailed the state's top judge from serving another term. With 97 percent of precincts reporting, Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard, once considered a shoo-in for re-election, was third in a field of four candidates.

The two top vote-getters will face the lone Republican in the race for two high court spots in November.

Maynard lost his advantage when photos surfaced in January of him vacationing with the chief executive of a massive coal producer. He faced a former justice, a Huntington lawyer and a West Virginia University law professor.

Maynard raised the most money, and his allies included the state's chamber of commerce and medical association. But the photos taken during a 2006 Monaco vacation, when he met up with Massey Energy Co.'s chief executive, quickly became campaign fodder.

Maynard blamed the furor on political foes, but withdrew from several Massey-related cases. He had said he would do the same if re-elected.

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who hasn't lost a statewide race since 1972, easily beat two challengers as he seeks a fifth six-year term. He'll face Republican Jay Wolfe in November's general election.

Gov. Joe Manchin easily fended off a primary challenge and will take on Republican Russ Weeks, a former state senator, in November.

[FishForLunch]

One thing Obama should do is avoid "Hillary as VP" like a plaque. The senator from Virgina will be good pick.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

One thing Obama should do is avoid "Hillary as VP" like a plaque. The senator from Virgina will be good pick.

Indeed. Pick one of Hillary's supporters - Ted Strickland, possibly, which would basically guarantee you Ohio. Jim Webb would also be a good choice, and would help reign in Virginia, a possible swing state. Sam Nunn, Wesley Clark, Kathleen Sebelius, and even Republican Chuck Hagel would be good choices, also.

[Evilmav2]

The Ghost of Ridiculous Obama Scandals of the Future Says: 'Republicans should indeed be wary, vigilant, and even fearful in this election year, but The Show Ain't Over 'til the Fat, Ethnic Machete Cleansing, KarlMarxStadt educated, Terror-sponsoring Luo Obama Cousin/Buddy Sings!!!!!'

[Janett_Reno]

It will be Republicans votting for Obama. The Republican party is in disarray.

It takes a Republican to get this country in a mess and a Democrat to get us back on the right path.

I am not sure who Obama picks for his vp. I feel Richardson is on the list.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

It will be Republicans votting for Obama.

I haven't met any of these people. No republican I know would ever vote for the party that wants to take your civil liberties away from you, your ability to choose, and give it to a government full of democrats who firmly believe that people are too stupid to take care of themselves.

The Republican party is in disarray.

You mean the party that has a nominee for president, as opposed to the party that can't get it's S straight while fighting amongst itself?

(What is "votting"?)

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

No republican I know would ever vote for the party that wants to take your civil liberties away from you

Patriot Act?

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Patriot Act?

Fair enough, chum.

But...I haven't noticed any changes in my life, have you?

They can video tape me taking my morning constitutional if it keeps my wife and future kids safe, I do not give a sh!t. I'm a team player.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Fair enough, chum.

But...I haven't noticed any changes in my life, have you?

They can video tape me taking my morning constitutional if it keeps my wife and future kids safe, I do not give a sh!t. I'm a team player.

Nope, no changes noticed here.

What did you have in mind when you mentioned giving up civil liberties?

[alby]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

It takes a Republican to get this country in a mess and a Democrat to get us back on the right path.

laugh.. (rolls eyes)

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

It takes a Republican & a Democrat to get this country in a mess and a box of farts to get us back on the right path.

I was never really all that good at ad-libs, but I think I fixed your sentence...

[jefelump]

from Janett_Reno:
It takes a Republican to get this country in a mess and a Democrat to get us back on the right path.

Seems you have completely forgotten about Jimmy Carter, and the lines at the gas stations. Perhaps you're too young to remember gas rationing, and only being able to put gas in your car on certain days of the week? Who followed that complete and utter failure? Oh yes, Ronald Reagan.

[jefelump]

I haven't noticed any loss of civil liberties either... and I'll note that since 9/11 we haven't been attacked on US soil, even though attempts have been made. You may not like the Patriot Act, wire taps, etc... but we are far safer than we were before. I have no worries about my children being blown up in a restaurant by a suicide bomber.

It has been almost 7 years since 9/11. I don't see any Democrats in elected office (Congress obviously) contributing to our safety and welfare. In fact, it was the Democrats who promised us lower gas prices in 2006. The price of gas has gone up considerably since the Dems took control of Congress. The mortgage crisis has happened after the Dems took control of Congress too. Can't blame everything on "this administration." The president doesn't make laws (excluding executive orders of course)... he signs them after Congress passes them. So on that note, Congress passed the Patriot Act. The President just signed it.

[mcsluggo]

I find this line of reasoning perplexing.... (yet it seems to be a real mainstay of thinking these days)

we had one big attack on american soil. A real whopper, yes. But still one successful attack on american soil.

... and people want to extrapolate all sorts of statistical significance from it? one data point?

leftists wanted to point out how it happened on W's watch, and how it proved that the CIA and FBI had become too politicized and that was why they failed to stop it (hence, they wanted to plot a line from zero stretching upword through the lone 911 data point, and into infinity)

now conservatives want to plot a line through it, starting from infinity and then DOWN through the one data-point to zero, pointing out how W has clearly saved the US from an imminent feiry death.

huh?

Our country is pretty damn safe. It used to be pretty damn safe. and now it still is pretty damn safe. Shit DOES happen occasionally... but it is of such low frequency that it will have to appear as a fairly random scatterplot.

Pearl Harbor? check.
911...? check.

but there is 60 YEARS between the two! Some other stuff (the 90's botched attempt to blow up the twin towers, etc...) but mostly calm. (don't get me wrong ... I GREATLY APPRECIATE the job our law enforcement and intelligence apparatice have done to keep us safe... my only point is that they have been doing it all along)


In my opinion, the ONLY way you can give credence to the "somehow W has managed to miraculously keep this emperilled country free from attack... " line of thought is if you believe that the US is somehow under much greater THREAT from attack than it had been in the past. but if you are trying to support the pres, be careful with this line of reasoning, because it is a double edged sword. If you go down THAT road, then you have to answer WHY you think the country is under so much greater threat from attack than it has been in the past... and at least SOME of that answer has to come from the administration and the role of its foreign policy in placing the US in its current standing in the global community. None of this happens in a vacuum, it is all interconnected.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I find this line of reasoning perplexing.... (yet it seems to be a real mainstay of thinking these days)

we had one big attack on american soil. A real whopper, yes. But still one successful attack on american soil.

... and people want to extrapolate all sorts of statistical significance from it? one data point?

leftists wanted to point out how it happened on W's watch, and how it proved that the CIA and FBI had become too politicized and that was why they failed to stop it (hence, they wanted to plot a line from zero stretching upword through the lone 911 data point, and into infinity)

now conservatives want to plot a line through it, starting from infinity and then DOWN through the one data-point to zero, pointing out how W has clearly saved the US from an imminent feiry death.

huh?

Our country is pretty damn safe. It used to be pretty damn safe. and now it still is pretty damn safe. Shit DOES happen occasionally... but it is of such low frequency that it will have to appear as a fairly random scatterplot.

Pearl Harbor? check.
911...? check.

but there is 60 YEARS between the two! Some other stuff (the 90's botched attempt to blow up the twin towers, etc...) but mostly calm. (don't get me wrong ... I GREATLY APPRECIATE the job our law enforcement and intelligence apparatice have done to keep us safe... my only point is that they have been doing it all along)


In my opinion, the ONLY way you can give credence to the "somehow W has managed to miraculously keep this emperilled country free from attack... " line of thought is if you believe that the US is somehow under much greater THREAT from attack than it had been in the past. but if you are trying to support the pres, be careful with this line of reasoning, because it is a double edged sword. If you go down THAT road, then you have to answer WHY you think the country is under so much greater threat from attack than it has been in the past... and at least SOME of that answer has to come from the administration and the role of its foreign policy in placing the US in its current standing in the global community. None of this happens in a vacuum, it is all interconnected.

Now, lets take an even bigger step backwards and examine the two points on your grid which are Pearl Harbor and 911.

Both are examples of how an iceberg's tip finally stuck an American in the butt. In both situations, things around the world were going badly and the bigger problems finally reached the well protected USA. When Pearl Harbor happened, eventual victory of the Allied Forces happened because the American War Machine went to work. Are you upset that people in Germany, Italy, and Japan really hated us because of our actions?
In the example of 911, the American War Machine fired up again. Are we really upset that some people in Afghanistan, border area of Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon really hate us? The result of Pearl Harbor was that in the end, we were in a Cold War with Russia which we won. The result of Iraq II is that we are in a Cold War with Russia again. Russia didn't like the aftermath of WWII and Russia doesn't like the aftermath of Iraq II. Do you buy into the garbage that proclaims that we have alienated Britain, France, and Germany? As a result of Iraq II, France and Germany have unelected the officials that hated us and have elected officials that appreciate us. Britain never wavered in its support of us although you can find individual Parliament members who hate us and speak loudly (as that is the British way in Parliament).

Our involvement around the world creates enemies. I won't argue with that. But, our activity around the world also protects us. History does not support isolationism and appeasement.

WW II created enemies who became allied with Russia. Iraq II creates enemies allied primarily with Shia Islam everywhere it exists. We had to maintain troops and military activity in Europe and Africa and the Pacific Ocean region (Phillipines, Pacific Islands) after WWII. We will have to maintain military activity around Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan and probably Syria/Lebanon.

So, how would you have recommended that the USA should have acted in the example of WWII. What should America have done differently to prevent the Japanese from bombing Pearl Harbor?
You have all of history to look back. It is a done deal. So, Mr. Foreign Policy, tell me how you would have prevented Japan from hitting Pearl Harbor?

And, while you are at it, tell me what we should have done differently to prevent 911?

Heck, we helped the Afghannies defeat Russia in their long war. We supplied them with the rockets and other weapons they used to stop Russia. Heck, we fought in Kosovo TO PREVENT WHITE DUDES FROM KILLING ISLAMIC PEOPLE!!!!!

So, how could have our foreign policy been better pre-911 to make Osama Bin Laden love the good ole USA?

[Arne]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Now, lets take an even bigger step backwards and examine the two points on your grid which are Pearl Harbor and 911.

Both are examples of how an iceberg's tip finally stuck an American in the butt. In both situations, things around the world were going badly and the bigger problems finally reached the well protected USA. When Pearl Harbor happened, eventual victory of the Allied Forces happened because the American War Machine went to work. Are you upset that people in Germany, Italy, and Japan really hated us because of our actions?
In the example of 911, the American War Machine fired up again. Are we really upset that some people in Afghanistan, border area of Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon really hate us? The result of Pearl Harbor was that in the end, we were in a Cold War with Russia which we won. The result of Iraq II is that we are in a Cold War with Russia again. Russia didn't like the aftermath of WWII and Russia doesn't like the aftermath of Iraq II. Do you buy into the garbage that proclaims that we have alienated Britain, France, and Germany? As a result of Iraq II, France and Germany have unelected the officials that hated us and have elected officials that appreciate us. Britain never wavered in its support of us although you can find individual Parliament members who hate us and speak loudly (as that is the British way in Parliament).

Our involvement around the world creates enemies. I won't argue with that. But, our activity around the world also protects us. History does not support isolationism and appeasement.

WW II created enemies who became allied with Russia. Iraq II creates enemies allied primarily with Shia Islam everywhere it exists. We had to maintain troops and military activity in Europe and Africa and the Pacific Ocean region (Phillipines, Pacific Islands) after WWII. We will have to maintain military activity around Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan and probably Syria/Lebanon.

So, how would you have recommended that the USA should have acted in the example of WWII. What should America have done differently to prevent the Japanese from bombing Pearl Harbor?
You have all of history to look back. It is a done deal. So, Mr. Foreign Policy, tell me how you would have prevented Japan from hitting Pearl Harbor?

And, while you are at it, tell me what we should have done differently to prevent 911?

Heck, we helped the Afghannies defeat Russia in their long war. We supplied them with the rockets and other weapons they used to stop Russia. Heck, we fought in Kosovo TO PREVENT WHITE DUDES FROM KILLING ISLAMIC PEOPLE!!!!!

So, how could have our foreign policy been better pre-911 to make Osama Bin Laden love the good ole USA?

Terrorism = Tactic
Germany back in the days = a fascist country which was occupying other countries.

You can't fight a war against a tactic. You can fight a war against a country.

Plus, the war back then was very wel justified. It's called the just war theory of christianity.

A war against Iraq cannot be justified like that.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Arne

Terrorism = Tactic
Germany back in the days = a fascist country which was occupying other countries.

You can't fight a war against a tactic. You can fight a war against a country.

Plus, the war back then was very wel justified. It's called the just war theory of christianity.

A war against Iraq cannot be justified like that.

You did not answer any of the questions of the previous conversation dealing with McSluggo's garbage.

Instead, you have introduced another pile of crap. Terrorism dropped the twin towers and a COUNTRY (Afghanistan) supported it, hid it, and protected it.

We dealt with a COUNTRY (Iraq) which attacked Kuwait in Iraq I. Iraq II is just a continuation of Iraq I. Iraq I was justified. Iraq continued its aggression against American interests in the middle east leading to Iraq II.

I'm not going to debate the entry of the US into Iraq II. It is well known that our intelligence community either failed or was manipulated.

But, lets ignore that as it is really not the contention at hand. Your issue is that we should not fight terrorism because terrorism does not constitute a cause for war under the "just war theory of christianity."

So, under your doctrine, we should do nothing to deal with Terrorism and its State Sponsors?

"Lucy, you got some splaining to do"

[Arne]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You did not answer any of the questions of the previous conversation dealing with McSluggo's garbage.

Instead, you have introduced another pile of crap. Terrorism dropped the twin towers and a COUNTRY (Afghanistan) supported it, hid it, and protected it.

We dealt with a COUNTRY (Iraq) which attacked Kuwait in Iraq I. Iraq II is just a continuation of Iraq I. Iraq I was justified. Iraq continued its aggression against American interests in the middle east leading to Iraq II.

I'm not going to debate the entry of the US into Iraq II. It is well known that our intelligence community either failed or was manipulated.

But, lets ignore that as it is really not the contention at hand. Your issue is that we should not fight terrorism because terrorism does not constitute a cause for war under the "just war theory of christianity."

So, under your doctrine, we should do nothing to deal with Terrorism and its State Sponsors?

"Lucy, you got some splaining to do"

US and other nations embargos on Iraq led to the death of hundreds of thousand Iraqi children prior to Iraq war two. The US didn't go into Iraq in order to defend itself or another country.

Stupid historical interventions abroad have led to a lot of unintended consequences that have created this type of terrorism. Giving Bin Laden these huge summs of money to go after the soviets, etc. There was no Al Qaida in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Now there are way too many to ever stop them by using armed forces.

When the US and the French troops left Lebanon, suicide terrorism eventually stopped. That's what we should do with Iraq. Give the people the incentive to take care of their own country first.

And one other thing, a country that has it's leaders so obviously lying to them should always on principle deny them any right to invade another country or to lead any type of war. Bush has talked about bombing Iraq if it had weapons of mass destruction prior to 9/11. Cheney knew about every little conflict that would arise if you invaded Iraq and stated them in order to defend the policy of not going into Iraq adter Iraq war one.

Besides, this country is actually going broke. You guys can't afford these wars anymore.

All these hundreds of billions spend on this war and US military leaders are saying that the military is in worse shape then prior to 9/11... The current policy is just flat our wrong in any way. - Morally, financially, regarding the security of the American nation and regarding the well-being of habeus corpus.

Almost a million Iraqis died because of this war. Thousands of Americans died because of it and all these hundred thousand soldiers who come home with mental issues or physical injuries. I just think it is common sense to believe that this stuff can'Tt go on like this.

[Underdog]

2,974 Americans were murdered by terrorists with airplanes on September 11, 2001...

29,573 Americans were murdered by other Americans with handguns in 2001 alone...



For some reason, the illegal wiretaps and suspension of Habeas Corpus don't make me feel any safer...

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by Underdog

2,974 Americans were murdered by terrorists with airplanes on September 11, 2001...

29,573 Americans were murdered by other Americans with handguns in 2001 alone...



For some reason, the illegal wiretaps and suspension of Habeas Corpus don't make me feel any safer...

I still don't understand how "I don't notice anything, therefore I don't have to care about anyone else's rights" is a proper defense for the illegal activities of this administration.

I really, really, REALLY hate to play the Nazi card, but how many Germans knew about the horrors going on around them and thought, "Well, nothing's changed in my life, so it's fine with me!"

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Underdog

2,974 Americans were murdered by terrorists with airplanes on September 11, 2001...

29,573 Americans were murdered by other Americans with handguns in 2001 alone...



For some reason, the illegal wiretaps and suspension of Habeas Corpus don't make me feel any safer...

If you want to talk about the wholesale abandonment of civil rights, then go join the thread regarding the CPS actions in Texas with the FLDS group. And, that has nothing to do with GW Bush or Homeland Security...

If you want to talk about civil rights, then you will find me there pointing out the civil rights violations that are occuring right there in your backyard (assuming you live in Texas).

[jefelump]

from Arne:
The fact that the mayority of New Hampshire anti-war Republicans voted in favor of John McCain tells me all I need to know about either the voting system, the media's job of informing the voters or the educational system that lets things like that happen...

What exactly does this tell you about the "voting system"? The voting system is simply a mechanism to allow the electorate to cast their ballot.

It is not the media's job to support candidates. The mainstream media's job is to report the news, which is a job they suck at. Most media outlets support the Democrat agenda, while trying to come across as unbiased. Candidates don't win or lose because of the media. Sure, having media support helps, but in the end it's each candidate's race to lose. Ron Paul has had ample opportunity to convince the public and the media that he's the best candidate, but he failed because of his policies. The blame rests on Ron Paul alone. You can't blame everyone else for your candidate's demise. I supported Mitt Romney. I contend that part of his demise was Huckabee's constant attacks on Romney's religion. However, I don't blame Huckabee alone. In the end, Romney failed to convince the voters he was the best candidate.

And what do you mean when you say "the educational system that let things happen that way"? Are you now blaming public education and universities? The vast majority of professors are Democrat, so they would not have supported Ron Paul anyways. And the educational system doesn't "let things happen that way". The job of the educational system is to teach the curriculum of the course, not promote political candidates. Again, you can't blame others for your candidates failure.

from Arne:
One million votes despite of a media blackout is amazing if you ask me... In January or even further back there was a study that showed that during the last couple of months McCain's name (who wasn't even the favorite back then) was given on TV something like one hundred times more than Ron Paul's...

That just tells me that back in January the media knew Ron Paul wasn't a viable candidate, so they didn't waste their time covering him. Is that the media's fault? No. It's Ron Paul's fault for failing to convince the people his policies were the best for this country. Ron Paul's polling numbers were (and still are) horrible. Look at the Democrat side... There are several contenders on the Left who were ignored by the media too. There is no vast right wing or left wing conspiracy against Ron Paul.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by jefelump

What exactly does this tell you about the "voting system"? The voting system is simply a mechanism to allow the electorate to cast their ballot.

It is not the media's job to support candidates. The mainstream media's job is to report the news, which is a job they suck at. Most media outlets support the Democrat agenda, while trying to come across as unbiased. Candidates don't win or lose because of the media. Sure, having media support helps, but in the end it's each candidate's race to lose. Ron Paul has had ample opportunity to convince the public and the media that he's the best candidate, but he failed because of his policies. The blame rests on Ron Paul alone. You can't blame everyone else for your candidate's demise. I supported Mitt Romney. I contend that part of his demise was Huckabee's constant attacks on Romney's religion. However, I don't blame Huckabee alone. In the end, Romney failed to convince the voters he was the best candidate.

And what do you mean when you say "the educational system that let things happen that way"? Are you now blaming public education and universities? The vast majority of professors are Democrat, so they would not have supported Ron Paul anyways. And the educational system doesn't "let things happen that way". The job of the educational system is to teach the curriculum of the course, not promote political candidates. Again, you can't blame others for your candidates failure.



That just tells me that back in January the media knew Ron Paul wasn't a viable candidate, so they didn't waste their time covering him. Is that the media's fault? No. It's Ron Paul's fault for failing to convince the people his policies were the best for this country. Ron Paul's polling numbers were (and still are) horrible. Look at the Democrat side... There are several contenders on the Left who were ignored by the media too. There is no vast right wing or left wing conspiracy against Ron Paul.

The media does not talk about policies, they are way too busy reporting about Obamas new jeans and so on. Other then that, you think it is the candidates task to convince the media that they're a viable candidate? If you really think like that how do you handle bias like that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlacFmRGPgI



And then your quote about Professors that are Democrats and therefore would support him anyways, that's just hilarious... Because of the one war issue they would all support him? He's pro-life, he's voted against any tax-hikes, he's voted against any expansion of the welfare-state, he's gonna secure the borders and birthright-citizenship for illegal immigrants... I could name hundreds of issues Democrats would hate him for.

I'm sorry, but your post just like wmb...'s post only show how uninformed you guys are about what Ron Paul stands for.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by jefelump

And what do you mean when you say "the educational system that let things happen that way"? Are you now blaming public education and universities? The vast majority of professors are Democrat, so they would not have supported Ron Paul anyways. And the educational system doesn't "let things happen that way". The job of the educational system is to teach the curriculum of the course, not promote political candidates. Again, you can't blame others for your candidates failure.

I owe you an apology. I read your post in something like ten seconds, because I was in a rush. I'm sorry for the Professor thing.

And to make myself clear about the education thing: When anti-war Republicans vote for the guy who wants to keep the troops over there for a hundred years if necessary, then the educational system has got have some deep issues. If people can't even find out for themselves what a candidate stands for.

I'm not saying that higher education lacks anything in America I'm saying that Highschool education has to be horrible if something like that happens... By the way, Ron Paul can visit every college in America and at least a crowd of 500 people will show up...

I'm not arguing that any educational system should promote any political candidate. But every educational system should make sure that people are intelligent enough or interessted in politics enough to make sure, that they will find out what the candidate they vote for stands for.

[jefelump]

from Arne:
The media does not talk about policies, they are way too busy reporting about Obamas new jeans and so on. Other then that, you think it is the candidates task to convince the media that they're a viable candidate? If you really think like that how do you handle bias like that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlacFmRGPgI

I didn't say "convince the media." I said "convince the public and the media." I really don't care what the media thinks about a candidate. It's up to each voter to do his own homework. I said it helps to have support in the media, because obviously they talk about the candidates they like and support more than others. You will never find an unbiased media. So again, if Ron Paul wants us to think he's viable, he has to convince us, the public.

And in a presidential debate, you're going to find all kinds of bias. That's the nature of the beast. I think Ron Paul handled the question very well.

from Arne:
And then your quote about Professors that are Democrats and therefore would support him anyways, that's just hilarious... Because of the one war issue they would all support him? He's pro-life, he's voted against any tax-hikes, he's voted against any expansion of the welfare-state, he's gonna secure the borders and birthright-citizenship for illegal immigrants... I could name hundreds of issues Democrats would hate him for.

I'm sorry, but your post just like wmb...'s post only show how uninformed you guys are about what Ron Paul stands for.

Read my post again. I said those Democrat professors would NOT support him.

Don't get me wrong. There are many things in Ron Paul's platform that I support. The things you quoted, like "He's pro-life, he's voted against any tax-hikes, he's voted against any expansion of the welfare-state, he's gonna secure the borders and birthright-citizenship for illegal immigrants" are all things I support. However, I also support the war. I don't want to see another Mogadishu-type scenario where the US pulls out prematurely and emboldens the enemy. Bill Clinton pulled out, and so the enemy attacked us here. I would rather fight the enemy elsewhere and keep ourselves safe at home.

[Janett_Reno]

Defend Bush, defend Cheney and defend Rumsfield and talk of how great these men are as Obama and Hillary point out the real truth. Thank goodness turn coat McCain who one week is a neocon and the next week a Democrat is sniffing up to Bush/Cheney now as Obama will rip him apart.

Let's see who wins the next president and see who the American people choose, 4 more years of the neocons(McCain) or Obama. I put my money on the Democrat and a very lib one. It has been pointed out many times that this country is less safe now. Faith and Values? Give me some faith and values that a neocon has? The myth that neocons are not homo's, the myth that only neocons are christians, the myth that all neocons are against abortion, the myth that all neocons are for less spending and less taxes? Look in the mirror what a neocon really stands for and the American people see the truth.

Haha, this is a joke. If you do not work for Haliburton or big oil then not many people are in better shape since the neocons took over. Obama, just stay on your brilliant message and keep pointing out what a neocon stands for and you will win easily. Stay on message and keep pointing out that McCain is Bush/Cheney/Rumsfields buddy. McCain is out here now trying to pretend he is going to clean up the air, the water ways when the neocons are the BIG SPENDERS, the waterway and air poluters, for big oil, for borrowing tons of money from China, for sending American jobs to Mexico, China, India and trust me Ohio has seen the wool pulled over there eyes for 7 years now and they won't trust another neocon. Tell me one thing with these faith and values and do another.

Trickle down economics? Haha how about trickle down gas prices, trickle down food prices, trickle down recession, trickle down inflation, trickle down to people living in their cars and losing houses left and right. I could make a list a mile long.

Now this neocon adm has made Syria and especially Iran much more stronger as Obama has pointed out. Is this good and is this more safe? Haha, voodoo foreign policy.

Now read my lips, the southern gop is in much fear now, big big fear that Obama could be the pres of the usa and you decide why they are in fear. The young people are comming out and record numbers marching and funding Obama. Republicans are leaving the gop party. They can not even win a senate or congress seat. Even in Ms where Democrats never win, now Ms is in play for the pres and if the gop starts getting stripped of the southern states they have no chance.

Like the head of the gop has said, they must stop attacking Democrats and they must speak and stand for something. Say it and mean it and try to convince the American people i really stand for this and mean it. The days of the faith, values, taxes, they are the big spenders, we are the christians, they are for abortion and we are not, they like gays and we don't. None of that works anymore and the head of the gop party has said it. Ron Paul is probably going to support Obama and it is many Republicans and as i have said this neocon adm has ruined the Republican party. It won't be fixed until Obama spanks McCain and then someone within the gop or someone new revamps it.

All the neocons can say is, the terrorist are comming, lock up, because they are almost here. They do not even believe themself saying we are more safe and in the next sentence speak of the terrorist are comming.

Good luck with McCain or Bush trying to debate Obama. What a joke. Good luck trying to find voters comming out for 4 more years of the last 7.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Trickle down economics? Haha how about trickle down gas prices, trickle down food prices, trickle down recession, trickle down inflation, trickle down to people living in their cars and losing houses left and right. I could make a list a mile long.

Once again, I can only tell you that you don't know anything about economics if you think that the problem of inflation will be solved by Obama drastically expanding the federal government. Inflation is the increase in the money supply. Period. It doesn't matter if a liberal, a neo-conservative or a monkey handles the money printing machine. - It is inflation whoever creates it and where ever the new money is being spend on by the government.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by Arne

Once again, I can only tell you that you don't know anything about economics if you think that the problem of inflation will be solved by Obama drastically expanding the federal government. Inflation is the increase in the money supply. Period. It doesn't matter if a liberal, a neo-conservative or a monkey handles the money printing machine. - It is inflation whoever creates it and where ever the new money is being spend on by the government.

Under a Democrat, the USA citizens had a job, they had pride, they was safe, the jobs was not moving to Mexico, India and China, we was not slaves to China. This neocon adm are the biggest spenders and borrowers of money in the history of the usa. Under a Democrat our mighty dollar was supreme and wasn't the value of a peso. Under a Democrat we was respected in the world and looked up to. His foreign policy was very good and respected. Under a Democrat, Republicans, Independents and Democrats made great money, had a house, a car, and had a future, savings and a pension. Under a Democrat he left office with a 65% approval rating. Highest since wwll.

This same Democrat presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a reported federal surplus of 559 billon dollars.

Authorized $100 million counter-terrorism agreement with Israel to track down and root out terrorists.

Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with a woman. He messed up here but atleast it was not with a prostitute or with other men, like we hear about now in politics. He did not go around the coutry being a bully starting up wars, he did not sell us out to China, he loved his country, he did not throw away the American peoples jobs, it wasn't near as many kids left behind, he did not plunge our dollar down the drain, he did not come up with patriot acts, he did not go along and make up laws when it was to his benefit, he was not in the oil business, gas and oil prices was a fraction of the cost they are now, he had our water and air much cleaner than they are today, his country was not in a recession, he did not bring on inflation, he also was not a slave to Saudi, he did not streghten Syria and Iran.

Now tell me about George W Bush and the Neocons and don't give me the spill of faith and and values becuase i don't believe it.

Mr Cole ahead of the gop and Mr Greenspan has said time and time again, a neocon or a Republican has to take responsibility. They can't keep on with the blame game and blame their mess on JFK, Carter, Clinton, or another Democrat 50 years ago. Mr Greenspan said this adm sold the country out and had no values. This came from a Republican. Politics before the country, wreck the country. Cole says to stand for something and stick wth it, not just a slogan.

Is Hagel, Warner, Greenspan, Lugar and many more liars, no good cheats, or just maybe these men are patriots and good people that love and care about there country. Just maybe they do have faith and values. Maybe they want to try to save the Republican party and just maybe they are tired of being the doormat of the neocons. I would rather have these men by my side than David Vitter and Larry Craig and about half of McCains staff that has left because of wrong doing.

You can put all what W & Chains has done and put it in your pipe and smoke it but anyway you smoke it, it doesn't come up nice and rosey. It doesn't come up with the United States Of America citizens liking it. So you call inflation, recession, big oil, selling your country out, no jobs, low dollar, no housing market, no savings, bankrupt country, Iraq, no border protection, less safe, being hated by other countries anything you want to call it but in the end Mr Obama will remind you what it is and Republicans that love their country will tell you what it is, Democrats that love their country will tell you what it is and it is alot different from what a neocon stands for or believes in.

The American's will not vote in another 4 years like the last 7. They are sick of it.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Under a Democrat, the USA citizens had a job, they had pride, they was safe, the jobs was not moving to Mexico, India and China, we was not slaves to China. This neocon adm are the biggest spenders and borrowers of money in the history of the usa. Under a Democrat our mighty dollar was supreme and wasn't the value of a peso. Under a Democrat we was respected in the world and looked up to. His foreign policy was very good and respected. Under a Democrat, Republicans, Independents and Democrats made great money, had a house, a car, and had a future, savings and a pension. Under a Democrat he left office with a 65% approval rating. Highest since wwll.

This same Democrat presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a reported federal surplus of 559 billon dollars.

Authorized $100 million counter-terrorism agreement with Israel to track down and root out terrorists.

Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with a woman. He messed up here but atleast it was not with a prostitute or with other men, like we hear about now in politics. He did not go around the coutry being a bully starting up wars, he did not sell us out to China, he loved his country, he did not throw away the American peoples jobs, it wasn't near as many kids left behind, he did not plunge our dollar down the drain, he did not come up with patriot acts, he did not go along and make up laws when it was to his benefit, he was not in the oil business, gas and oil prices was a fraction of the cost they are now, he had our water and air much cleaner than they are today, his country was not in a recession, he did not bring on inflation, he also was not a slave to Saudi, he did not streghten Syria and Iran.

Now tell me about George W Bush and the Neocons and don't give me the spill of faith and and values becuase i don't believe it.

Mr Cole ahead of the gop and Mr Greenspan has said time and time again, a neocon or a Republican has to take responsibility. They can't keep on with the blame game and blame their mess on JFK, Carter, Clinton, or another Democrat 50 years ago. Mr Greenspan said this adm sold the country out and had no values. This came from a Republican. Politics before the country, wreck the country. Cole says to stand for something and stick wth it, not just a slogan.

Is Hagel, Warner, Greenspan, Lugar and many more liars, no good cheats, or just maybe these men are patriots and good people that love and care about there country. Just maybe they do have faith and values. Maybe they want to try to save the Republican party and just maybe they are tired of being the doormat of the neocons. I would rather have these men by my side than David Vitter and Larry Craig and about half of McCains staff that has left because of wrong doing.

You can put all what W & Chains has done and put it in your pipe and smoke it but anyway you smoke it, it doesn't come up nice and rosey. It doesn't come up with the United States Of America citizens liking it. So you call inflation, recession, big oil, selling your country out, no jobs, low dollar, no housing market, no savings, bankrupt country, Iraq, no border protection, less safe, being hated by other countries anything you want to call it but in the end Mr Obama will remind you what it is and Republicans that love their country will tell you what it is, Democrats that love their country will tell you what it is and it is alot different from what a neocon stands for or believes in.

The American's will not vote in another 4 years like the last 7. They are sick of it.

You do not understand economics, period. The Nasdaq bubble was to a large degree the result of monetary policy under Clinton. The former president had the advantage of being president during the beginning of a period of monetary inflation. Eventually, all of these phony profits had come to an end, since this monetary policy made all these crazy mal-investments possible. The mess you guys are in is not only, because the Bush administration didn't want the correction to take place and, because of the war. It is because of the monetary policies under Clinton, as well.

If it hadn't been for Bush, Al "the lying bitch who gets caught time after time after time" Gore would've had the same choice that Bush had:

1. Let the correction happen, return America to a sane monetary policy and sit out the bad times.

2. Inflate the bubble away for a couple of years and wait till it hits the next administration even harder. Essentially: Create the housing crisis, which is the financial crisis and will turn into a credit card fiasco, since people won't be able to pay back their credit card debts due to the lost equity in their houses...

For option number one to happen, Al Gore would've had to get a handle on government spending, which I would not believe, since Al Gore would just spend the money Bush used to go to war, in order to pay for some crazy environmental and social programs.

Al these jobs that went to Mexico will continue to go to Mexico whoever the president is, since America just can't compete with working low labour costs in Mexico. It's called globalization stupid... Which is a good thing for everyone if it's dealt with in the right way...

[Janett_Reno]

If the neocons has and sense about them they will listen to Cole, not Bush, not Cheney(Cheney just lost the gop another congressional seat in MS), not Libberman, not McCain, not Rudy G, not Hailey Barbour, but people like Cole, Chuck Hagel, or other Republicans, not neocons.

The Democrats do not have to say or do anything as the neocons destroy themself daily. McCain forgets who the good guys and bad guys are and scratches his head trying to remember what is what as Bush and Cheney goes out making crazy speaches for him. Mainly Bush and Cole needs to try to help Bush/Cheney and stop putting their foot in McCains mouth and the Republican party.

Cole is right on with what he says.

[Janett_Reno]

After the Clinton era...

The Democrats thought they could ride Clintons coat tail and spew out the one liners like the neocons do now. Gore thought he could win without Clintons help and also he thought the American people would see what a dunce Bush was because of him being a lil rich spoiled brat. Gore tried to come off as a professor and it backfired big time as the American public said we would rather have a drunk, a dunce, and someone that is naturally dumb than someone that maybe is smart but knows he is smart and comes off as a smart butt.

The Democrats did nothing and said nothing for awhile and got landslided bad, senate, house. Just because Clinton had us more money than we ever had, we had more jobs than we ever had and people from the bottom up to the top was all making great money, wasn't enough for others to ride in.

Then the Democrats took it on the chin and said, maybe we are out of touch and we need to do more, talk to the American people and be more in touch. They did and in return landslided the gop party in the house and senate. The gop party was out of touch preaching faith and values as some was datting prostitutes and some turned gay and was turned to the homo life but still preaching faith and values. The American public is not stupid. In the meantime the gop says we are not in fault of gas prices, people losing there houses, recession, inflation, iraq war, not getting laden, borrowing money and spending at record levels never seen before, the fallen dollar, no child left behind, our borders, health care and they said and say we are not responsible for none of that. We are better than this because we are the morals people.

Guys like Warner, Hagel, Lugar saying wake up Republican party. Wake up. Stop with the one liners and let's take responsibilility and let's speak and stand for something. Where the American people can see. The neocons are kicking guys like Lugar, hagel, Warner out of the party and now Cole is saying the same things.

The Democrats made a change and they had to and now will the gop go all the way to a neocon party or will guys like Lugar, Hagel, Warner, Cole and others get their party back? McCain sold out to the neocons. Romney didn't but he was a mormon and that hurt him with his religion.

That brings me to Obama/Hillary. Hillary thought she could ride coat tails and win without saying and doing. It backfired. She started saying and doing about half way in but then it was to late. Obama stayed on cue from beginning to end. He is speaking to the hearts of the American people. He is not riding coat tails and he is not backing down either.

I do not think the gop will listen to Cole untill after Obama is elected and then they will make changes "probably". The American people do not like our economy or alot of what is going on and they will hold someone responsible next pres election. The gop must make changes as Cole has said and as the Democrats did.

[wmbwinn]

I actually agree with you, Janet. The GOP has to shape up. I would invite you over to the "Newt for President" thread where you can see an example of a new pathway for the GOP. That thread is limited to the issue of fuel. But, it is an example of how the GOP can organize and put forward a real campaign platform that will cause real change for the good.

Remember that Newt was the man behind the "contract with America" campaign that succeeded so well in 1998 (mid term elections).

Obama is a man of plans. I don't like his plans but he is to be credited for coming up with plans.

Newt is a man of plans. I like most of his plans.

I think we will see the GOP put forward a unified new plan that people can look at. I am worried, though, that McCain is the candidate. He is too far out of reach with Newt and company in the conservative circle of the GOP.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Remember that Newt was the man behind the "contract with America" campaign that succeeded so well in 1998 (mid term elections).

That was 1994.

[wmbwinn]

thanks, Chum. you are right.

Now, I said earlier that I agreed with most of Newt's positions. Newt's contract with America which included the balanced budget included slashing healthcare reimbursement for all aspects of mental health. The mental health environment has been reeling ever since then. So, I'm not a Newt clone or blind follower. Not everything Newt stands for strikes me as correct.

It was 1998 when the mental health reimbursement changes happened and the HMO structure went into full use. I have 1998 stuck in my head because that is when the Newt-onian changes (there's a fun word having nothing to do with Sir Isaac Newton) took place.

[Janett_Reno]

Thanks wmbwinn and maybe Newt is the man to help shape up the gop and get them on the right track. Obama does speak well and has plans, if we agree or do not agee. I really feel Bush/Cheney and this adm has made alot of Republicans take a stance, are you with us the neocons or not? This hurt. It put alot of people(gop) between a rock and a hard place.


McCain must hope for Hillary/Obama keeping going on and it be a split in the Dem party. I feel Hillary will get aboard and back Obama fully. Will all her backers? I feel most will but as far as speaking and a message, Obama has one. The gop must listen to someone inbetween a neocon and a Republican. Like Cole, like Newt. Hagel, John Warner, Lugar are Republicans and bascially the cons want to kick them out of the party. That is not the way to be.

I agree with you, that McCain is a hard nominee for all Republicans to rally around. If he had broke from the neocons he would have got more Democrat and Independent votes. Bush/Cheney will not help him.

[jefelump]

from Usually Lurkin:
I'm no historian, and your's is the first post I've read in this thread, so think of this as a "drive-by" question, but didn't congress cut war spending to force troop withdrawals in vietnam?

Yes, Congress cut war spending to force troop withdrawals. Congress controls the purse, and therefore defunded the war. However, it wasn't BECAUSE of finances that Congress defunded the war. Congress simply used money to force the President to withdraw. They refused to fund the war, so the President had no choice.

[Arne]

On the issue of education:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wKIo...eature=related

[Janett_Reno]

Al and Bill did not wreck this country. It was people like Neil Bush wrecking the savings and loans and Herbert begging for mercy keeping his son out of the pen. Clinton loved his country and gave it 559 billon dollars. W Bush took that money and spent it and has us in a hole of trillons.

You can't live on borrowed money and now he has us a slave to China as they and Saudi buy up land in the usa and businesses. The Neocons are about wanting to control the middle east, oil and Israel.

Ask Chuck Hagel, John Waner, Greenspan, Richard Lugar who the dunce is and who put the usa in this shape? They would also like to know the neocon policy. Borrow and sink the usa into poverty? Dictate like a bully? Deny recession and infaltion? Pretend times are nice? Let the Amercian people decide if they were better off under Dick Cheney/Bush or Clinton/Gore. No excuses just facts.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Al and Bill did not wreck this country. It was people like Neil Bush wrecking the savings and loans and Herbert begging for mercy keeping his son out of the pen. Clinton loved his country and gave it 559 billon dollars. W Bush took that money and spent it and has us in a hole of trillons.

You can't live on borrowed money and now he has us a slave to China as they and Saudi buy up land in the usa and businesses. The Neocons are about wanting to control the middle east, oil and Israel.

Ask Chuck Hagel, John Waner, Greenspan, Richard Lugar who the dunce is and who put the usa in this shape? They would also like to know the neocon policy. Borrow and sink the usa into poverty? Dictate like a bully? Deny recession and infaltion? Pretend times are nice? Let the Amercian people decide if they were better off under Dick Cheney/Bush or Clinton/Gore. No excuses just facts.

Being on the beginning end of monetary expansion=having the better economy, having lots of tax revenue from phony profits.

This is what Clinton had.

If you can't comprehend that easy little fact than you don't understand economics.

Plus, Bill Clinton vetoed a bill that would've made Fed conference open to public and would've gotten congress at least a little oversight over what the Fed is doing by saying "it would threaten market security"...






By the way, about terrorism and what causes it from someone who has to know since he led the Bin Laden unit back in the days. Someone who is actually endorsing Ron Paul...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K097...eature=related