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: 46
15
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I like Guliani and Ron Paul, because they have some qualities that have impressed me. Guliani is tough on serious issues like terrorism and doesn't overplay issues like abortion or gay marriage. Ron Paul on the other hand seems to be very knowledgeable about the current economy, however I understand that he has some anti-govt sentiments and that's not good in my book.




posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Giuliani has really been fading fast in recent weeks. He's going to need to have a great showing on the CNN YouTube Debate on 11.28.07 at 8pm (plug plug!) or else he's dead in the water.

Giuliani is over the top on terrorism and security. You can be serious about it, but don't throw those buzz words around so frivolously, it's reminiscent of the Bush Administration, as it's the same rhetoric that has gotten us into trouble over in Iraq.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   
The most conservative Presidentiial candidate remains that bitch Hillary. Why does your party suck so much? I mean I'm serious, and you know I'm right. Deport illegals. Take care of kids and the elderly. And send all our jobs to China! It's a Republican DREAM!



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Well no matter who gets elected in terms of the likes of fiscal responsibility things are reaching a tipping point. The only way the the US government spending will come under control is if the president vetoes any bills that contain any pork this includes the spending habits of his/her party. Realistically I don't think this will happen because to be asstive you Congress as whole could or would involve the president standing up to his/her own party.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKainZero
Rudy, Thompson, Romney, McCain, Paul, Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter

Now, taking bets on the next to Drop! I say Huckabee.

Thoughts???


Well thats from 10-19

And in the month and a half since then, Huckabee is flying to the top of every poll...

I have no creditbility in these situations anymore....

Countinue on...



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Can't win 'em all, TKain. Huckabee has really surged as of late. I think voters are looking for a republican who is going to have a religious background they can respect. Giuliani has never really been an option with that, and Romney is undergoing a lot of unecessary scrutiny because of his. I'm noticing more anti Huckabee points out there from the media as they try to find something nasty. I just don't see him winning the big states he'll need. I still see Romney getting the nomination.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
The Main stream is realy giving Huckabee a lot of attention, i dont know how he is doing on TV, but he is all over the Drudge.

Although i still stand by with my assesment of him from a couple months ago, where i stated that i tought HUckabee would be the manufactuered 'dark horse' canidate, in order to even further less the position of Dr. Ron Paul.

He has started to get some flak at some on the online sites, but his campain seems to just blow off the acusasaions.

We are drawing close to the first primaries, and then we will see who has the most supporters spam the polls.

and PS Crye, i LOVE what you have been doing to you avatar these past few days. I have a friend taking greek, and ive been trying to get him to learn how to say that in greek, he still can't, i am getting disapointed.

PPS, you should have spatan kicked her.


[edit on 12/10/2007 by TKainZero]

[edit on 12/10/2007 by TKainZero]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Giuliani would be almost as bad as Hillary if he manages to get in the office.

The last thing we need is an illegal alien protecting, cross dressed, Cintra representing corrupt nutjob in the White House.

I would suggest everyone watch this and ask yourselves if this is the clown who deserves to be elected.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


IMHO, sHilliary and Guliani are one in the same, they are the choices of those that we call the Powers That Be.

Guliani is a straight up NWO canidate, that openly comes out and states that he belives that our country would be better off entering the 'managed' trade agrements, like NAFTA and CAFTA. I was floored when he said this in the last debates.

WE all know the history of sHilliary, so no need to go there.

IN the comig election, Guliani and Clinton are the incumbents, they are the home team, they have the refs in thier pockets, whatever analogy works for you, it doesnt look good for US.

======

Nice video, never seen it, it is pre-9/11 too

LMAO, "Your acting like a bunch of imature losers... i wont talk to you"
"You came to cause trouble, and your a bunch of idiots"
"I know your not as smart as kindergardeners"

Oh, what a roit, what is this event from, just a town hall meeting?

[edit on 12/10/2007 by TKainZero]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Well I have seen nothing to convince me that the Republican party is any closer to digging it self out of the hole it is in . It looks like the Republican will just have to taken the medicine on this one and rebuild itself even if he is misguided Ron Paul is the only small government advocate in the crowd. In if the Republicans can re gain control of Congress they might be able to keep Hillary in check but given the events of recent times this probably wont be possible .



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



TKainZero -
IMHO, sHilliary and Giuliani are one in the same, they are the choices of those that we call the Powers That Be.


How long, T/K/Z, before you support my ideas on CFR? We can never have FREE elections until it is FREE to run for office. We’re getting a small taste of that this year, what with 11 GOPs and about 8 Dems. But, on my plan, there would be 50-100 candidates on each side. We’d have to run 2 or 3 pre-primaries to cut the number down to size. But we could do it, if we wanted to. Vote on the internet. We could do it all in 6-8 weeks. Let the new prez take office 3-4 weeks after the election. All actions taken by the losers would be subject to instant repeal-undoing in the first 30 days of the new prez. Instead of a 2008 race taking 673 days to November 4, and then another and another 136 days before the winner gets to take office, we could do it all in under 90 days, if we wanted to.


X11 - I have seen nothing to convince me that the Republican party is any closer to digging it self out of the hole it is in. It looks like the Republican will just have to taken the medicine on this one and rebuild itself - even if he is misguided Ron Paul is the only small government advocate in the crowd.


Au contraire. The “hole” you fear is only one issue deep. Iraq. But for Iraq, the GOP would be on equal standing with the Dems. The SURGE worked perfectly for Bush43. It got him past the January ‘07 inauguration of the Dem Congress to the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 07. The only time he was vulnerable. Anything done in Congress now is irrelevant to his LEGACY. It will fall to the next president to oversee the withdrawal of America from Iraq. Historical revisionists will be free to claim if B43's “stay the course” advice had been followed, it will have ended all better. Somewhat akin to the Vietnam War. “LBJ’s War.” actually, LBJ was in power only from 11/22/63 to 01/20/69, about five years and 2 months. RMN - Nixon - was in charge from 01/20/69 to his resignation, August 9, 1974, five years, six months and 19 days. 120 days more than LBJ. So why not call it RMN’s War?

I’m afraid you are looking through the wrong end of a telescope, Mr X11, when you urge “smaller government” in a larger world. Try turning it around.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Whether or not small government is a good idea actually isnt my point here. My point here is that the Republican Party is ideology bankrupt. It is clear as day that the Republican no longer stands for small government and that they only pay lip service to the idea. You cant invade people civil liberty's become the Christian Taliban and spend money like crazy and then claim that you are for small government.

When the Republican Party was dealing with Clinton foreign policy about of crazy right wingers who had been out of a job started to dream up the Iraq war hmm ........

All party's and ideology's go thou periods of time when they are forced into the wildness. The political left went thou this during the 80s and 90s and emerged under Clinton , Blair and Clark with the so called Third Way .

[edit on 13-12-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



Xpert11
Whether or not small government is a good idea . .

This year, 2007
, we have witnessed the recall of salad mixes infected with e. coli bacteria and the admission we do not know where much of the imported food we eat is produced, let alone ever inspected for clean processing. Then one of the oldest meat processing companies in the US was forced out of business when it had to recall millions of pounds of ground beef. Then we were confronted with multiple recalls of toys made with “too much” lead paint! TOO MUCH? Any lead is TOO MUCH! We learned the Consumer Product Safety Commission - the Federal agency charged with this issue - had but ONE full time inspector posted to that task! And that he had only a “closet” size laboratory to do his analyses. Just last week, President Bush lamely asked China to make its toy makers conform to US law. Come quick, Sweet Jesus.

And then came the “sub prime” mortgage meltdown. It’s not over yet. Has it ever occurred to anyone why the US was able to handle the largest single housing boom in the history of the world, post-war 2, from 1945 to about 1975, and never even know what “sub-prime” meant? See Foot Note. How did the US manage that? To answer my own question, they prevented that by requiring LENDERS to make GOOD loans. Any financial institution that made too many bad loans was put under FDIC supervision until they got their act cleaned up. FDIC - Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - a federal agency that guarantees everyone’s bank deposits (up to $100,000) but which requires banks to use ‘good banking practices' in order to advertise as a “FDIC” bank. Yup, you guessed it. The FDIC was gutted, and the banks now perform “self audits” and file reports that are rarely if ever reviewed. It takes a long time for any great institution to collapse, and there are TRILLIONS to be made in the process! ALL of our most beneficial institutions are under attack! The future bodes ill for us.

Once upon a time we had an FDA
- Food and Drug Administration - that actually administrated the health and safely for American consumers. Not any more. We recently learned that 75% of the active ingredients in prescription medicine is made outside the US. The FDA says - I’m not lying - in “about 2,000 sources.” It turns out the FDA does not know exactly how many “sources” there are. But, FDA “rules” require an onsite inspection once every TWO years. And we bad-mouth Canadian medicines! Ronald Reagan and the 2 Bushes have almost UNDONE all the work done by the New Deal.

People who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Foot Note. In the 1940s, the FHA - Federal Housing Administration - banned the use of lead based paint in new homes, requiring the new latex paint instead. (Latex paint was a WW2 invention). Most local government also banned lead paint in many applications including schools and hospitals. The lead based paint continues to exist because it is useful in marine and industrial applications. However, almost ALL the local governing authorities played a dirty trick on the POOR, they “grand fathered” existing lead based paint. In 2007, it is estimated 20 million children live in housing with lead based paint. Almost all are poor of course, since the hosing had to be older than 1950 and people of means rarely live in housing that old. God Bless America! Land of the Free and Home of the Brave!

[edit on 12/14/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Don with all do respect I already know and understand your views on the size of the US government.
What I want to know is if you think the Republicans will spend some time in the wildness like the political left did or if people will forgot about Iraq when some other quiet possible bogus issue comes to the forefront ?

Otherwise all I am going to say is that is easier to regulate stuff that is manufactured locally then it is imports.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Don with all do respect I already know and understand your views
on the size of the US government.


OK. I’m wrong. This is not the forum for my views. Correction accepted.


What I want to know is if you think the Republicans will spend some time in the wildness like the political left did or if people will forgot about Iraq when some other quiet possible bogus issue comes to the forefront ?


Time in the wilderness? NO! The so-called “political center” of America is where Robert A. Taft was when I first voted. Senator Taft was the putative GOP candidate for 1952 until Ike decided he wanted to top off his war hero career with a tour in the White House. People like me - pro skull-cracking labor union types - with 91% income tax rates - number fewer than 10% of the thinking population. We are even outnumbered by the rabid end-of-time reactionaries on the ‘Praise The Lord’ right. Note: The Dems could not get 50 votes in the Senate for the Immigration Bill supported by Dick Cheney. Nothing progressive will happen here - y e t.

Otherwise all I am going to say is that is easier to regulate stuff that is manufactured locally then it is imports.


Yes, but you’re about 30 years late. (I date Globalization from the 6th Party Congress of China in 1977).



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Don I don't want to come across has not wanting your opinions on differnt matters. I just wanted to get my point across before we entered another side topic no offence was intended.
What makes you think that the US government could regulate imports any better then they run the education system ?
The US education produces people that don't know that Londoners speak English.

IMO the roots of globalization stem from the after mouth of WW2 and the creation of NATO , Marshal aid and the US presence both those things brought with them.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Don I don't want to come across has not wanting your opinions on different matters - no offense was intended.


NO offense taken.


What makes you think that the US government could regulate imports any better then they run the education system ? The US education produces people that don't know that Londoners speak English. IMO the roots of globalization stem from the after mouth of WW2 and the creation of NATO, Marshal aid and the US presence both those things brought with them.



1) Education in the United States has been under attack since the 1950s anti RED scares of the Right Wing Republicans. McCarthyism. I cannot relate the history of public education in America in this forum. Suffice it to remind that the Northwest Territory* was acquired in the settlement of the Revolutionary War. The Northwest Ordinance of 1785 set aside every 16th section for public education. Today, we still refer to a special class of state universities as the “land grant colleges.” Before WW2, school teachers - K12 - were usually unmarried women. Post secondary schools were almost exclusively staffed by men. Yup! For a woman teacher to marry was to loose her job! And no pregnant teachers were allowed in the classroom!

From the outset, local property taxes funded public schools. Property owners. The Rich and Famous. This also meant the R&Fs were elected to the School Boards. In my city of Louisville until 1926, each of the 12 aldermen controlled the schools in his ward. All jobs including teaching were purely patronage jobs. America’s blacks got what was left over. Used books, abandoned schools, broken equipment and graffiti covered desks were good enough for the blacks. In fact, in Louisville, one black school still had outdoor toilets in 1954!

Louisville’s only black high school - whites had 5 academic plus one vocational high school which was off limits to blacks - had been built originally as a hospital in the Civil War. If you were lucky enough to be born in a wealthy district, you might say again, might have good schools. There were no state-wide school standards. Local governance at its BEST which is to say, small governance at its worst. After War 2, the public demanded better schools. In my lifetime my state of KY has had 3 or 4 “progressive” governors. Lucky for me and us, there was a governor who wanted to see KY rise above MS, AR and AL. We adopted a 3% sales tax to fund the K12 public schools. (Now 6%). The school plan was called the “Minimum Foundation.” It addressed widespread truancy by paying each district an amount calculated on daily attendance. A newly created state school board adopted text books. For the first time - around 1950 - parents did not have to buy school books.

In the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, there were two MAJOR groups primarily responsible for those hard won advances in public education. The P-TA, Parent-Teacher Association. The PTAs. The second group was the FIRST teacher’s union, known then as the NEA. Union was a dirty word. NOT professional. NEA stood for National Education Association and each state’s unit was named for the state, as in our case, the KEA. Kentucky Education Association.

The first barrier to fall was the ban on married female teachers. The next barrier was the wide discrepancy in pay for male versus female teachers. A vicious practice that survives in America to this day. After 1954 the segregation barrier against black teachers in white or mixed classes fell. All this time the KEA and NEA were fighting to raise standards. And I do mean FIGHTING. Nothing came easily. Nothing was given to them.

To end this overly long response, the fight goes on today. Eastern Republicans and upper Midwestern Republicans generally favor good public education. Southern Democrats - who are now mostly Republicans - thank you Mr Reagan - and western Republicans generally have opposed good public schools. Today they want to teach “Intelligent Design” in public school biology classes. Magnet schools are another device concocted by anti-education Republicans to destroy the public schools. Why aren’t ALL schools magnet schools? Merit pay for teachers is a union busing tactic! Bush43's ‘No Child Left Behind’ is a perverse variation on ALL children left behind.

IF our schools are doing badly - they are not as bad as often touted - then it is 99.44% due to the union busting, anti-tax efforts of Republicans to MUCK UP the institution.

2) Roots? Well, you could throw in airplanes, radio communications and so on. Even the notion of modernity feeds global interdependence. Regardless where we attempt to define its beginning, it is here and will not go away. For better or for ill.

*The Northwest Territory then (1785) included today’s Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. “Northwest” today means Oregon and Washington state.

[edit on 12/15/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Don from the beginning of this thread we have discussed side topics sometimes for pages at a time so don't let me stop you from posting your thoughts. I forgot to add in my last post that the collapse of the British Empire also played a part in the rise of globalization . Once New Zealand lost its near exclusive access to the British market in the 70s the country had to find other markets to survive economically .



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


IMO the roots of globalization stem from the after mouth of WW2 and the creation of NATO , Marshal aid and the US presence both those things brought with them. Don I forgot to add in my last post that the collapse of the British Empire also played a part in the rise of globalization . Once New Zealand lost its near exclusive access to the British market in the 70s the country had to find other markets to survive economically.


Or, Mr X11, the inevitable product of the inexorable march of history? An historical imperative? On that basis we could date globalization from Columbus’ first sea voyage of 1492 or the even earlier overland journey by Marco Polo beginning at Constantinople in 1259 and returning to Venice in 1269 or 1270. The latter travels by the way are now being called into question for glaring errors of omission that make it improbable the Polos ever reached China. More likely their travels ended on the Great Silk Road at Turfan or Nami in modern Kyrgystan (see Aside following) on the western edge of the Gobi Desert. Another entertaining medieval tale to join the myth of the scientifically debunked Shroud of Turin? Wherever in time we date it - globalization - I offer it as one more proof of my hypothesis that nothing remarkable in human affairs happens by accident.

Aside: Lands of the -Stans. Central to south-central Asia. Afghanistan, Kazakstan, Kyrgystan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkministan and Uzbekistan make up the oft called “Seven -Stans.” There are 2 more failed “-stans.” Kurdistan (Iraq) and Baluchistan (Iran) making 9 -stans in all. A very sturdy people who have occasionally been over-powered but have never been conquered.

Some historians date the conceptualization of a global empire from Britain’s “Imperial Century,” 1815-1914. From Waterloo to the First World War. I think the successes of the British during Queen Victoria’s long reign - 1837-1901 - lulled them into a complacency which in turn, brought on the First World War, which was the “beginning of the end” to paraphrase Churchill a half century later. Perhaps it proves the adage “when you stop growing you start dying?” Yes, I agree World War 2 which some historians call the LAST battle of World War 1 and which another - Eugen Weber - called the “Second 30 Years War” was the death knell for the British Empire.

America - Swift’s Gulliver to England’s Lilliputians - with 4 X the population of the United Kingdom, 20 X the land area and unconstrained by a continuous history dating from at least the building of Hadrian’s Wall (117 km) which was begun in 122 and finished in 130, has replaced the first world-wide empire, truly the 8th “Wonder of the World.”

The British Empire actually lives on today. The British Commonwealth. First named in 1884 whilst visiting Adelaide by Lord Rosebery, it was formalized in 1921 as the Commonwealth of Nations. The only time in history when millions of people, thousands of miles apart, have voluntarily accepted the crowned head of a far off country to be their own Sovereign. Which must say something rather good about the English and the British?

Yes, all those elements you mentioned Mr X11 played a role in making today’s globalized world.

[edit on 12/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Side Note continued



This is a list of Commonwealth Members by name. As of 2007, there are 53 states (including two suspended) that are members of the Commonwealth of Nations (including 16 which are Commonwealth realms), and five former members.


source

The list is fairly self-explanatory. It is highly debatable whether or not the Commonwealth is an effective organisation or just a gentlemen's club. Well that is my opinion anyway. Every couple of years there is a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting which has the strange abbreviation of CHOGM.

On another note entirely .


Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat turned Independent, will endorse Republican Sen. John McCain for president, officials close to both Lieberman and McCain familiar with the plan tell CNN.

Lieberman is planning to announce his support for McCain at an early Monday morning event in New Hampshire, but the campaign is keeping a close eye on a winter storm that could force it to be rescheduled.


source

Assuming that this is true and I think that there is a good chance that it is I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. Given that the grass roots and elements of his former party turned there back on Joe I don't know why he bothers to caucus with the Dems.

Perhaps he is representing the more conservative elements of his former party that elected him as a independent.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by xpert11]




top topics



 
15
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join