It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

page: 24
15
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   


posted by xpert11

I can see a third party candidate splitting the Conservative vote in 2012. IF the Conservative vote is split the election would be gifted to the Dems. The other obstacle a third party faces is the perception that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. This perception exists primarily in countries where the political system is geared up for winner take all and not for equal representation - proportional - so that gives an idea of how hard the perception is to change. [Edited by Don W]



Amen. It has finally occurred to me that although I often mention Perot’s failed 3rd party effort in the 1992 election, I have failed to bring to the board’s attention for serious consideration, the more recent “success” of another third party, the Green Party of Ralph Nader in 2000.

Whereas Perot’s 18 million votes had no effect on the outcome of the 1992 election, Nader’s slightly fewer than 3 million Green votes threw the election from the Dems to the GOP. But even that was not without a big boost from the US Supreme Court. The Court’s opportunity to work its mischief would not have presented but for Nader’s 97,421 votes in Florida taken mostly from Dems.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to ban further recounts in Florida because there was no uniformity or regularity in the recounting procedures, different counties were recounting differently. What looks easy at first blush - recounting votes - had turned into an insoluble mess. At the point where the Supreme Court halted further recounting, Bush was ahead by a margin of 537 votes, and he was certified the winner. The rest is history, as they say. Who says timing is not everything? Who says their vote does not count?

Aside: The Greens were on 44 state ballots and received 2,882,897 votes, or 2.7% of all votes cast. The 2000 total vote cast in Florida was 5,962,657.

Follows is a list from 2000 of the 5 closest states, in descending order, by percent of votes the winner carried the state:
# 1. Florida,




posted on May, 17 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Whereas Perot’s 18 million votes had no effect on the outcome of the 1992 election,


How can you say that for sure? Not to disagree, but I was always of the impression that GHWB might have won reelection if Perot wasn't on the ballot, but I haven't done any serious research into it.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   


posted by djohnsto77

posted by donwhite
Whereas Perot’s 18 million votes had no effect on the outcome of the 1992 election,

How can you say that for sure? Not to disagree, but I was always of the impression that GHWB might have won reelection if Perot wasn't on the ballot, but I haven't done any serious research into it. [Edited by Don W]



That question was hotly debated by the talking heads after the 1992 election. It seems to be (to me) the consensus was that Perot’s appeal was equal in both the Dem and GOP ranks. Such issues as a balanced budget and general reforms were also advocated by the 2 major parties. I have adopted that opinion as my own. However, see also Wikipedia under Ross Perot for more on that.

This unlike Ralph Nader's Green Party where the most likely source of votes would come from the Dems.

[edit on 5/17/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

How can you say that for sure? Not to disagree, but I was always of the impression that GHWB might have won reelection if Perot wasn't on the ballot, but I haven't done any serious research into it.


You're not the only one to have that thought. If there had been no Perot in '92, we may have seen a very close race. Could be that Florida would have "happened" sooner. My impression of George Herbert Walker Bush at that time was that he really didn't want to be re-elected. My sense ofthe man is that he was going through the motions to satisfy friends in the part and to pay off some of his political debts.

Had he stayed in th race, tihink that Perot would have made a credible showing, but he would have lost by a convincing 2-8 points. Either way, clinton was faced with opponents whom he could claim to beat "honestly."

The question being kicked around here is that of Michael Bloomberg. I say, don't look for him 'til 2012 or even 2016. Like Elliot Spitzer, he will take the long view to these things. Billionaires don't rush to anything except (maybe) dinner.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham


posted by djohnsto77: How can [DW] say for sure that [Perot did not effect the election outcome]? I hold B41 might have won reelection if Perot wasn't on the ballot, but I haven't done any serious research into it. [Edited by Don W]


My impression of George H W Bush at that time was that he really didn't want to be re-elected. My sense of the man is that he was going through the motions to pay off some of his political debts. [Edited by Don W]



Iran Contra. B41 was about to go under in the trial of Casper Weinberg and his 6 assistants. Can anyone doubt ex-CIA director and sitting VP B41 - when poor Alzheimer candidate Reagan slept through the NSC meetings - was not making all those illegal plans to transfer and deliver arms and etc? Or did you think US foreign policy was run by an USMC Lt Col? Semper Fi!

Casper denied that he had kept extensive notes of those meetings, when it was common knowledge he was a copious notetaker. Remember it is a separate crime to lie to the FBI. One of Casper's assistant let it out there were 6 loose leaf notebooks full of notes. Casper and his assistants were indicted by the DC Grand Jury for obstruction of justice, lying, and etc. A pathetic ex President Reagan feigned loss of memory when he had to testify in court.

You can imagine DC inhabitants gleefully lining up to serve as jurors to try 7 white GOP defendants who were part of an unpopular and mocking “welfare Cadillac” government in DC. Hey, it’s payback time! In spades! No pun intended.

All this trouble arose because the Congress had 3 times enacted specific prohibitions against funding or aiding the Contra forces in Nicaragua which opposed the leftist - say land reform - Sandinistas. Good capitalists to the end, Reagan and B41 just could not leave well enough alone. Casper must have warned B41 that he would not “take a fall.” B41 did the Christian thing and pardoned all 7 of the defendants. That in my opinion is why he looked lethargic on the campaign trail. If B41 had won the electron, he could not pardon them. He had to lose or say hello to Leavenworth.

[edit on 5/17/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
One question that has sprung to mind is what happens if both a Liberal and Conservative third party candidate run in the same election and both split there respective voting block ?

So any third party Conservative candidates who are looking to make a run in 2012 or 2016 pretty much need to better what Ron Paul is doing now (tapping into the well of voters who are unhappy with the Republican party ) under a differnt flag. Now would be a good time Ron to leave the Republican party because he could take some of the Conservative voters who are unhappy with the party in future elections.

One of Bloomberg friends needs to start a media outlet who's sole purpose is to counter Fox News and other main stream media outlets biases. I'm no fan of media bias in any form but this would be a case of "don't hate the player hate the game ."



posted on May, 18 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Hello to all. I've been rather busy this week, so I haven't had much time for ATS. As we go in to the weekend, I'm catching up on my u2 and such.

In regards to Michael Bloomberg, now that I've had a chance to look, I'm doubtful that he'll actually make the leap. Here's why. a) He's going to decide that it's just not worth trying to following inthe wake of George W. Bush while competing against the likes of Hillary and Obama. b) He doesn't have the network of political operators in place that any serious candidate would need.

Those of you who like Ron Paul had better enjoy him while he lasts. He's done. Aside from the fact that he still lacks the network of political operators, and money, he's about to be smeared by every competing candidate with a pulse. Expect special interest groups to jump in. If you really do like him, write your letters and send your money now...before its too late. Make your arguments count.

You can bet that every political war room in the country is busy crunching the details of Bush's immigration deal. Democrats will be able to get more positive PR out of the thing, but...smart GOP Presidential candidates can make this work for them, too. As a purely practical matter, I would like to point out one thing. From now, immigration and border security will now be "fashionable" to talk about out in the open. Remember that when the Real ID laws kick in.



posted on May, 18 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   


posted by Xpert11

One question springs to mind: What happens if both a Liberal and Conservative third party candidate run in the same election and both split their respective voting block?



Nothing. In the majority of states, a plurality wins. In a few states, a run-off election between the top 2 finishers is required unless one candidate gets 50% + 1 vote in the first election. I regret to inform you that Florida has the much touted run-off requirement which I favor. I just voted this past Tuesday, however only 9% of registered voters came out to choose 6 of the 25 city council members. For 4 year terms. Hmm?




Any third party Conservative candidates who are looking to make a run in 2012 or 2016 need to improve over what Ron Paul is doing now but under a different flag. Now would be time Ron to leave the Republican party because he could take some of the Conservative voters who are unhappy with the party in future elections.



You keep urging a 3rd party, Mr X11, and I keep naysaying it. You do it because you think people will study the issues before they vote and will choose the candidate who is most reasonable on the most important issues. You believe they will cast an informed, intelligent vote. I, OTOH, think politics is too much like religion. Neither is often rational, both are more often irrational. It’s mainly determined by birth. “My parents were Methodists or Republicans, therefore I am a Methodist and a Republican. Say no more to me.” Because it is very hard to tell any difference in your day-to-day life regardless which church you attend or which party is in power, it is very hard to persuade even open minded persons his or her vote makes any real difference.



One of Bloomberg’s friends needs to start a media outlet who's sole purpose is to counter Fox News biases. I'm no fan of media bias in any form but this would be a case of "don't hate the player, hate the game." [Edited by Don W]



Well, as little as I know, I’d rate the networks like this, audience wise, CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC and NBC. Fox types are true believers. They don’t want to hear contrary news. They want only news that reenforces their preconceived ideas. Redneck types. Bud Lite. Drive F150s. Etc. The other 4 networks may or may not have biases, but I’d rank the other 4 networks as “somewhat reliable” with maybe the nod to CNN. Fox of course gets a NOT reliable vote from me.

Well, actually, I must admit I have Fox OFF my remote so I never see it. But I hear about it.

I also have been watching Al Jazeera lately, and I hope to see it on our cable system. I believe Al Jazeera is more reliable than any US network. The way our system is set up, the First Amendment works for the R&Fs who own the media. It does not work for me. Hmm?



posted by Justin Oldham

Hello to all. I've been busy this week, I haven't had much time for ATS. In regards to Michael Bloomberg, I'm doubtful that he'll actually make the leap. Here's why. A) He's going to decide it's just not worth trying to follow in the wake of George W. Bush while competing against Hillary and Obama. B) He doesn't have the network of political operators in place that any serious candidate would need.



Well, the Billion Dollar Set-aside Rumor overcomes some of the lack in the more traditional ways to run a campaign. Bloomberg might decide to go 100% through the internet. With high paid Disney types and Rappers and a dozen other stars, he could set up and work on a dozen super websites. Streaming videos and voice mail 24/7, he could make such a splash the Big 5 media mentioned above would end up “giving” him tons of free publicity. The real question for Bloomberg is when do the states shut you out of a spot on “their” ballot? FYI, I just learned Perot spent $65 million in 1992.



Those who like Ron Paul better enjoy him while he lasts. He's done. Aside from the fact that he lacks the network of political operators and money, he's about to be smeared by every competing candidate with a pulse. If you really like him write your letters and send your money now before its too late. Make your arguments count.



How many times when we see someone gripe, have I asked, “How much money did you send your Congressman today?” No one wants to admit it out loud but you know in your heart of hearts, your government is for sale. To the R&Fs. Let’s face it, poor people do not bribe public officials. That is a crime exclusively in the province of the R&F-ers.



You can bet that every political war room in the country is busy crunching the details of Bush's immigration deal. Democrats will be able to get more positive PR out of the thing, but smart GOP Presidential candidates can make this work for them, too. As a purely practical matter, I would like to point out one thing. From now, immigration and border security will now be "fashionable" to talk about out in the open. Remember that when the Real ID laws kick in. [Edited by Don W]



I hate a fence. I hate people who sponsor building a fence. Let them go to Israel! Let them hire old retired East German Vopos to man the fence. Let them add a 1000 meter wide Free Fire Zone from the good ole days of Vietnam. What a bankrupt democracy! What a disgusting place Bush43 has turned this country into in barely 7 years. Sweet Jesus, come quick!

[edit on 5/18/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 18 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Hello, Don. I can see that your vacation is energizing you. Good.


As a trained political scientist, I understand that certai nconditions must exist beofre there can be a viable third party. I'll let you know when I see those events converging.

In the mean time, we are lefto to ponder the impact of Bush's immigration deal. What says the rest of you?



posted on May, 18 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Don I not so much selling the idea of a third party rather I am just putting forward ideas on how a platform would be created for a run in 2012 or 2016. If American voters reject a third party that is there choice.

As for Ron Paul why does he remain in the Republican party ?
I cant understand why Ron even made a run this time round little alone remains in a party who's policy's are so alien in comparison to his.

The immigration deal is neither hear nor there while it is good to see bipartisanship the nature of the deal will make it a hard sell on both sides of the political fence. On a political level Republican candidates are struck between a rock and a hard place. If they come out in favour of an amnesty they will alienate there supporters who want zero tolerance to illegal Aliens . If a candidate puts the interests of the USA first they will make an enemy of the South American voting block.


[edit on 18-5-2007 by xpert11]



posted on May, 18 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

Hello, Don. I can see that your vacation is energizing you. Good. As a trained political scientist, I understand that certain conditions must exist before there can be a viable third party. I'll let you know when I see those events converging. In the mean time, we are left to ponder the impact of Bush's immigration deal. What says the rest of you?


First, I don’t like a $5,000 fine. It will be very difficult for people who live hand to mouth and supporting children or family in Mexico to come up with that much money. I can see this opening up the scam for loan sharks this time bolstered by the US Gov’t. I hate that.

If we must have a huge fine, then there ought to be a check-off to take it out of their future earnings. 10 bucks a week for 10 years, which works out to about the time they will have to wait to get citizenship. God, what a bunch of greedy pigs we are!

Next, by not giving the completion of the nuclear family priority ahead of skills and education - say hello rich people's kids - is giving the lie to the claim by both sides but especially by the GOP types they support family values. The one time the GOP gets a chance to stand up for family values, they fall down for the demagogues. Hypocrites all!

Asking a mother for example, to go back to Costa Rico and wait her turn to get back in, that’s crazy - who’s going to babysit her kids - and ought to be banned by the US Con, as a cruel and unusual punishment. This plan although once upon a time was well intended, is now a plan that was crafted in Hell! I'm ashamed to be an American.

Zeig Heil!

[edit on 5/18/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 18 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I'd normally have sympathy for these illegals.

But they're ILLEGAL. They are INVADERS. They are invading the country illegally. You might as well let a foreign army into our borders as well, because these are people don't exist on any official records. Every second that they are within our country's borders is blatant ignorance for the principles of our republic.



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   


posted by xpert11

Don I not so much selling the idea of a third party rather I am just putting forward ideas on how a platform would be created for a run in 2012 or 2016. If American voters reject a third party that is there choice.


I apologize, Mr X11. My responses have been intended to be deliberative and not accusatory. I enjoy reading your thoughtful recitations on third parties and on any other topic you have posted to. It takes off the luster for me when I worry you may have misunderstood me, justifiably assuming that because of my stridently advocated positions, I somehow thought your positions less worthy. That is not the case at all! At least here, everyone is equal. (Although our moderators may be first among equals.)



As for Ron Paul - why does he remain in the Republican party ? I can’t understand why Ron even made a run this time round little alone remains in a party whose policies are so alien in comparison to his.


Without knowing his Goldwater heart of hearts, I think Ron is playing to his constituency. See from Wikipedia: The Texas 14 House district covers the area south and southwest of the Greater Houston region, including Galveston and running generally south along the Gulf of Mexico. Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul, born in PA in 1935, he is a 10 term Congressman and a M.D., by profession. Duke U. As a physician - an Ob-Gyn - Paul didn't accept Medicare or Medicaid; instead, he would do the work for free or work out a lowered payment plan for needy patients. He delivered more than 4,000 babies.

He is an ‘08 GOP presidential candidate. Paul advocates a limited role for the federal government, low taxes, free markets and a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency.

[Help Me! I understand all that except a “commodity-backed currency.” Can anyone help?]

Resume. Paul has consistently voted against the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [Guantanamo Bay], and the Iraq War. He has not signed up for a congressional pension (worth about $150,000 a year. Hey whoever said Congress does not take care of its own?) In the May 15, ‘07 GOP debate in South Carolina, Paul took a close second (25%) to Romney, who received the most votes (29%) In the post debate poll. Only Paul and McCain did not endorse torture. END.



The immigration deal is neither here nor there . . it is good to see bipartisanship . . the deal will make it a hard sell on both sides of the political fence. Politically GOP candidates are struck between a rock and a hard place. If they come out in favor of an amnesty they will alienate there supporters who want zero tolerance to illegal aliens . . if a candidate puts the interests of the USA first they will make an enemy of the South American [Latinos] voting block. [Edited by Don W]



I hate to admit it, but I think those in Congress who say this is a rare “window of opportunity” to do something are correct. I, OTOH, do not want the all too many of the bad provisions of this bill, so for me, more of the same is better than a a little of the very bad.

No fence.
No fines.
No exit before you reenter.
No neglect of nuclear family reunification here.

Exerted from the sonnet enshrined on the Statute of Liberty,
“The New Colossus"
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

By Emma Lazarus, 1883

Do we believe this or is it just more 21st century propaganda, hyperbole?

[edit on 5/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
[I understand all that except a “commodity based currency.” Can anyone help me?]


We have a fiat dollar right now backed by nothing but debt. He wants to return to a gold or silver or both backed dollar. I'm about 99% sure that is what he means...



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   


posted by LostSailor


posted by donwhite: I understand all that except a “commodity based currency.” Can anyone help me?


We have a fiat dollar right now backed by nothing but debt. He wants to return to a gold or silver or both backed dollar. I'm about 99% sure that is what he means . .


Thanks, L/S. That sounds reasonable enough. I disagree with Paul however, because using any finite quantity of anything as a basis of currency limits the government's ability to effect monetary policy to achieve political goals.

For example, to limit inflation, the FED raises the overnight discount rate to banks. This is the underlying interest rate that most other loans are based on, including many credit cards. In the opposite direction, to stimulate the economy as when in a recession, the lowering of that same overnight rate puts more money into circulation simply because it is cheaper.

Finally, to prevent too much overt political interference in the economy, the National Federal Reserve Board is made up of 12 persons plus the Chairman. Although all are political appointments by the president, so far the Fed Chairmanship has been by consensus in the main. That is due to the fact either political party benefits equally from economic good times and suffers equally from economic bad times. The only thing both panties agree on.

That would put me as opposing Ron Paul on that.

PS. There is nothing wrong with fiat money. Every nation on earth uses it. We have used it since 1933 and our country has not gone to hell. Yet. And we’ve prospered a bit, too.

[edit on 5/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Yes Don,

But, we shouldn't have to live with inflation. It is in fact nothing but a hidden tax on the poorer people of this country. The dollar devalues as it passes through the economy. Wall street gets it first and is doing just fine. However, the middle class is under attack from this fiat dollar. Also, we left the gold standard in 1971 and since then the dollar has decreased considerably in value. Right now we borrow billions from other countries to keep the dollar viable. Of course, if you are a fan of the Amero this will not worry you one bit. I, however, am concerned about our nations sovereignty. Also, I would like to take the power back from the private banks and give it back to the people via Congress.

Also, not every nation on Earth uses it. This is actually a concern for the World Bankers. You can also bet that if we ever do win this debacle in Iraq the first thing done will be the establishment of a central bank giving these world bankers the power in Iraq. I am not a fan of 'globalization' if you cannot tell.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by LostSailor]



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   


posted by LostSailor

Yes Don, But, we shouldn't have to live with inflation. It is in fact nothing but a hidden tax on the poorer people of this country. [Edited by Don W]



There are only three states in which any large, industrialize economy can exist:
1) Inflating
2) Deflating or
3) Stagnating. (Say Hello Jimmy Carter. The worst of the three states.)

If you look at “1) Inflating” I remind you of the saying, “a rising tide floats all ships” then you can see why no one complains about inflation until it reaches harmful rates. Currently anything over 3% annual rate is alarming. 2% or so is the preferred rate. See Q. below. One of our longest periods of constant growth with low inflation was the 100 months in 1962 to 1970. In a couple of those years the annual rate was given as 1%. It is my memory the entire 100 months had but 11% or 12% total inflation.

I believe we’d all agree “2) Deflating” is much worse than low inflation and we know “3) Stagnating” cost Jimmy Carter the 1980 election, if the hostages in Baghdad did not.

By the bye, it seems to me the poor benefit more from moderate inflation - with more money things cost less when measured in time to earn money - whereas the rich would benefit more from deflation - with less money, property already paid for is worth more. I.E., it would take longer to work for the necessary money. What say you, Mr L/S?



Also, we left the gold standard in 1971 and since then the dollar has decreased considerably in value.



We departed the gold standard in 1933. Left over from the New Deal was the tenuous connection of our currency to gold by setting an artificial price for gold. By 1941 the US Treasury held the majority the world's gold supply. By 1971 inflation had caught up with and outstripped the $35 an ounce price set by the 1933 law. It was because of theories by people on your side that the US decided to FORCE the price of gold to $35 an ounce even though that was totally unrealistic. 1971 was not 1933. Finally, overcoming our national hubris, we stopped the effort of setting the price of gold and disconnected the US Treasury from its misguided, lamentable and futile effort to fix the price fo gold too low. We were not on the gold standard in 1971. See Note below.

On the value of the dollar - or any other currency - it is all relative. And even worse, measured against what? This is the same argument used against raising the minimum wage and against unions striking for higher wages. Wrong then, wrong now. We have to divorce ourselves from the comfort and security of fixed values or prices. As you have remarked, it is globalization today and no longer nations or even regions as the EU also shows.



We borrow billions from other countries to keep the dollar viable.


Not exactly. On the first Wednesday of every month, at the building pictured on the reverse of the $10 bill, the US Treasury offers bills, notes and bonds for sale to the highest bidder. Still, as it has been since 1945, the US 20 year bond is the world’s benchmark for interest rates. Not by law or by force, but by consent and agreement around the world. Because of all the borrowers in the world, the US has the best credit. Simple. We are so fortunate, so lucky, to live in this country! Let’s no muck it up.



Of course, if you are a fan of the Amero [US slang for Euro?] this will not worry you one bit.


Re-read my post just above.



I however, am concerned about our nations sovereignty. I would like to take the power back from the private banks and give it back to the people via Congress.



Unworkable. Jesus had the same gripe you are having, angered at the money changers, the bankers of his day, and you know what happened to him! Don’t you know the man who pays the fiddler gets to call the tune?



Also, not every nation on Earth uses it. This is actually a concern for the World Bankers.



I admit some countries as so fiscally disrupted that only gold or silver will be accepted for goods but that does not mean the country is on the gold standard. If you are a merchant in Gaza, you must pay cash for your goods and you must have cash when you sell. Same in Iraq. The same in Darfur. But again, that is due to a localized and total break down in society and its institutions, not because someone in government said “we’re on the gold standard.”

Let me put it this way, every nation of consequence uses fiat money.



You can bet that if we ever do win this debacle in Iraq the first thing done will be the establishment of a central bank giving these world bankers the power in Iraq. I am not a fan of 'globalization' if you cannot tell.



Yes, you are 100% right about the Iraq Central Bank of Baghdad. But that’s the world we live in. You may be closer to Karl Marx than you ever dreamed!


Q. What is the formula to calculate the long term value of a current inflation rate? That is, how do you calculate the doubling effect? Example: at 2% annual rate, how long before the value doubles? I suggest any inflation rate value that puts doubling out one full generation - 20-25 years - is acceptable.

Foot Note:On September 2, 1945, the United States had 80% of the world’s industrial capacity. We produced 75% of the world’s GDP. Whereas the Soviet Union had lost more than 20 million, Germany 8 million, and China about 5 million dead in the last 7 years of war, the US had lose fewer than a half million fighting on two fronts and defeating all the combined forces of the adversaries. This is not to say we did it all, that is conspicuously not true. We could not have invaded Western Europe (or North Africa) but for the secure and proximate base in the British Isles.

We would have missed sorely the 3 million men at arms under the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. There were 1000s of men from the Free French, Poland, Czechoslovakia and others. Guerillas in Yugoslavia and in French Indo China. The Resistance in many occupied countries. There was a million men in the 2 Chinese armies. Perhaps 1/3rd of the fighting ships of the line flew flags other than the American flag.

A million Mexicans crossed into the US as farm laborers. We did not do it alone, we could not have done it alone. That is why we and 50 other nations formed the United Nations in 1946. But Americans have had to watch as our share of the wealth of the world has steadily declined to now where it is about 20-22%. Which is the way it should have been. Such is progress.

Had George Bush a/k/a Dumbya to his friends, been our president and not Harry Truman, he would have declared himself “Lawful Successor to the Holy Roman Emperor, Lord Protector and Plenipotentiary of the West, and Commander in Chief of America for Life” and the servile sycophant Alberto Gonzales would have told him it was not only his due but it was Constitutional.

[edit on 5/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I dont dislike Ron as a person. On an political level I have to agree with Justin his chances of winning the Republican nomination are very slim to say the least.

I disagree with Ron stance on Iraq and the reasons behind 9-11. If Ron reasoning behind 9-11 is correct then how do you explain the Bali bombings ?
When it comes to Free trade Ron sends mixed signals maybe Ron leans more towards protectionism (Is that the right term ? ) but fears being painted as having socialist leanings.

On the credit side of the ledger I was impressed by Ron stance on the fact that the US hasn't declared a war since world war two and I also liked his
comments (I'm pretty sure it was Paul who said this ) about health care when he said something along the lines of letting the market do its job. He pointed that the market has lead to people on lower incomes being able afford computers.



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
A DC politico I highly respect says none of this matters. Wait until Karl Rove makes a move and goes with someone. It has nothing to do with that person being suddenly popular, just everyone else imploding.

Is that really all there is? Who do you think KR supports? Has McCain sold enough soul already? Or is there more on the table? I think the freaky Marketplace walk says a lot.

By the way, Ron Paul for King.



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Is that really all there is? Who do you think KR supports? Has McCain sold enough soul already? Or is there more on the table? I think the freaky Marketplace walk says a lot.


On an political level it would be unwise for any of the Republican candidates to be connected to anything that resembles an endorsement from any member of the Bush admin. Now remaining on an political level had Karl Rove not been caught up in the various scandals that have plagued the Bush admin he would have been a excellent acquisition for any of the Republican party candidates expect for maybe Paul.

No matter what you think of Karl he is a master of his craft. This guy was the spin doctor who convinced many people that if you didn't the war in Iraq you don't support the troops and so on. It wasn't until the mid term election last year that many voters woke up from the dream that the situation in Iraq was magically get better.

If Karl was to make an early exit from the Bush admin a Republican candidate could decided that Karl value would outweigh any of the baggage from scandals he would bring with him. The baggage probably wouldn't be an issue until after both parties nominations have been decided. If Karl turned his skills into selling a candidate as the best person to inherit the Reagan legacy he would have voters believing that tomorrow can only get better under (enter candidates name ) in no time.

As for who Karl would vote for in the primary's I have no idea.
I do know that at this stage Karl is the greatest threat to Hillary and it looks like that he wont take any part in the 2008 race.







 
15
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join