Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.
ALUmnus wrote:Dude, learn when to let things go. Not everything is an attack, fight, or argument. I'll leave it at that, because you're obviously looking for something.
You called me out and I'm looking to start something?
Alrighty...dude.
"With the threat of hell hanging over my head like a halo..."
El Scorcho wrote:
Arrogant?!? HAHA!!! That's rich. He's one of the most humble politicians I've ever heard speak. I'm not sure you can call someone "arrogant" and a "pig" at the same time without being hypocritical, though.
Sorry, but I can't take you seriously (much the less respond) unless you give me something more than an ad hominem attack. Specific examples, please.
I think his foreign policy is out of touch.
How do you feel about our foreign policy over the last seven years? And during the Clinton era?
I think Bush and Clinton have both made mistakes. I think Clinton underetimated the threat of terrorism, but I think everyone did. I like Bush's idea of taking it to the terrorists, but I think Iraq is a mess and needs a new solution. I disagree with Paul and think Islamic terrorism is nothing like the Cold War and can't be fought as such. Our leaving the Middle East and other foreign interests will NOT stop Al Qaeda's hatred and War on the West.
kel varson wrote:
I think his foreign policy is out of touch.
How do you feel about our foreign policy over the last seven years? And during the Clinton era?
I think Bush and Clinton have both made mistakes. I think Clinton underetimated the threat of terrorism, but I think everyone did. I like Bush's idea of taking it to the terrorists, but I think Iraq is a mess and needs a new solution. I disagree with Paul and think Islamic terrorism is nothing like the Cold War and can't be fought as such. Our leaving the Middle East and other foreign interests will NOT stop Al Qaeda's hatred and War on the West.
Well, I agree with you on Iraq, but I guess we'll disagree on Al Qaeda. They pretty well left us alone until we set up shop in Saudi Arabia. I think all of this business about them hating freedom and the West is a lot of fluff stirred up to motivate people like us, who care deeply about the country, into supporting whatever action the current administration wishes to take. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. We've been arrogant and we're paying the price for it.
"With the threat of hell hanging over my head like a halo..."
ALUmnus wrote:Did anyone catch the debate last night on PBS? Probably not, but it was a shame that none of the major candidates bothered to show up when the main audience was minorities. But their absence actually allowed for substantive ideas and meaningful platforms to be conveyed, which was nice for a change.
Crazy nuts. Someone check sorcho's wallet for those fake bills.
Yes, I did just quote myself, because I demand acknowledgment. Here's a little love for who seems to be everyone's boy Tancredo. And some swipes at Huckabee, who I agree did disappoint in this debate.
There seems to be a growing group around LU supporting Ron Paul, and I still don't quite get it.
For example on this quiz he comes up 8th out of 9 Republican candidates for me.
We don't agree on:
Iraq
Immigration
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
The guy leans way to far to the left for me and He's against the death penalty. Someone sell me both on him and his electability.
conservative fiscally, socially liberal. I would say a broad generalization would point to folks who normally vote republican are tired of how terrible republicans have been handling the money, so they will give up their social stances.
*please disregard this post if dated before 2017 and accept my apologies*
LUconn wrote:conservative fiscally, socially liberal. I would say a broad generalization would point to folks who normally vote republican are tired of how terrible republicans have been handling the money, so they will give up their social stances.
I wouldn't even say socially liberal is entirely accurate. Ron Paul is a pro-life candidate, but in the truest sense. That's why he's against the death penalty. Of course, he was an M.D. with a private practice for 20 years, so being against death shouldn't really come as too much of a surprise. The perception of him as a "liberal" tends to comes from his strong pro-liberty stances. For example, he's against constitutional marriage amendments, not because he believes gays should be allowed to marry, but because he doesn't believe the government has any business being involved in marriage to begin with.
There was a time when such a pro-liberty view would have worried me, but as I've grown older I've decided that I believe liberty to be an ideal that can't be separated from our nation. Liberty, when just, is something I can now embrace.
I'd be lying if I said I don't love Ron Paul's fiscal stance, though. I think he might be one of a very few politicians in D.C. right now who fully grasp where our nation's economy is headed and why. The U.S. Comptroller General and Federal Reserve chairman tend to agree, based on interviews I've seen with them.
If you're truly interested in learning about Ron Paul, here are two short video clips of a ten-minute interview that I feel provides a good introduction:
Interview Part 1:
Interview Part 2:
If you want to get deep and find out his stance on just about all of the major issues, here is a one-hour interview he did with the employees at Google:
Google Interview:
Last edited by El Scorcho on October 4th, 2007, 11:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
"With the threat of hell hanging over my head like a halo..."
Thanks for the raply. I will watch the clips as I have time.
as a side note I think it's uncanny how much he looks like one of my favaoite old movie actors Harry Carey sr (Angel and the badman, Mr Smith Goes to Washington)
I know you most people don't agree with everything their candidate says but do you argree with this Scorcho?
Just come home," he said. "We just marched in. We can just come back. We went in there illegally. We did not declare war. It's lasting way too long. We didn't declare war in Korea or Vietnam. The wars were never really ended. We lose those wars. We're losing this one. We shouldn't be there. We ought to just come home."
*please disregard this post if dated before 2017 and accept my apologies*
I do. If you watch the first clip I posted, Ron Paul addresses those comments and answers questions about how an Iraq pullout would affect the U.S. and the Middle East. I agree with those statements as well.
We should not have gone there and we shouldn't still be there. We shouldn't have any military installations in the Middle East as far as I'm concerned.
"With the threat of hell hanging over my head like a halo..."
Bush, Congress Hit New Lows in AP Poll
Oct 4 11:29 AM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - Public approval for President Bush and Congress has sunk to the lowest levels ever recorded in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll.
Only 31 percent said they approve of the job Bush is doing, according to the survey released on Thursday. Though his positive ratings have hovered at about that range since last year, his lowest previous approval in the AP-Ipsos survey was 32 percent, which was recorded several times, most recently in June. That is virtually even with the latest reading.
...
Congress' job performance was approved by just 22 percent, continuing a gradual decline in the public's assessment since Democrats took over in January. Its lowest reading in the poll was 24 percent, recorded most recently in July.
LUconn wrote:I know you most people don't agree with everything their candidate says but do you argree with this Scorcho?
Just come home," he said. "We just marched in. We can just come back. We went in there illegally. We did not declare war. It's lasting way too long. We didn't declare war in Korea or Vietnam. The wars were never really ended. We lose those wars. We're losing this one. We shouldn't be there. We ought to just come home."
There is not a chance in ___ I could vote for this dude just based on that comment!
WOW. I watched the first 2 videos. He's all over the place politically. I don't think he has a chance to get the Republican nomination, maybe Libritarian. I will say that there is not 1 rep. candidate I'm excited to support this time. They all have huge flaws, and many of them are not electable. The one I agree with the most, Mr. Tencredo still has many things I disagree with and is not at all as electable as I would like. It's unfortunate, but I think it will come down to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Romney. Neither of them excites me at all. I'm still researching and looking though, maybe I'll find someone with my values some day. Maybe I should run.
Knucklehead wrote:WOW. I watched the first 2 videos. He's all over the place politically. I don't think he has a chance to get the Republican nomination, maybe Libritarian.
He's not really all over the place. He's pretty much a Libertarian through and through. He's had their nomination before, in fact. I agree that it's extremely unlikely that he'll get the nomination, though.
I'm all for candidates that aren't on one extreme or the other. I think our binary system is part of the problem. It seems like it would take a miracle for third parties to ever gain any ground, though. I think the likelihood of Americans lining up completely with either of the two major parties is extremely unlikely anymore, unless the nation just continues to become polarized. If that happens, nothing good will come of it anyway.
Last edited by El Scorcho on October 4th, 2007, 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"With the threat of hell hanging over my head like a halo..."
However, I believe neither will get the nomination. Unfortunately, even at LU, true Reagan conservatism appears to be dead. I think everyone seems to like the Neo-cons or the Libritarians. That's sad to me.
I will go back and talk to Ronnie in my shrine right here in my office next to my copy of the Constitution.
The Libertarian party shouldn't make you sad, that there's a lot of support at LU for them. They have a lot of great qualities. THey're just completely out to lunch on others.
*please disregard this post if dated before 2017 and accept my apologies*
LUconn wrote:The Libertarian party shouldn't make you sad, that there's a lot of support at LU for them. They have a lot of great qualities. THey're just completely out to lunch on others.
I'll agree with that. When it comes down to it, I'd say I'm probably only 80% or so behind the Libertarians. The personal liberty thing is a real struggle for me (as I mentioned before) and I'm still trying to hash out some of that. However, 80% is a lot more than I can put behind Republicans right now.
"With the threat of hell hanging over my head like a halo..."
Knucklehead wrote:I would actually agree that the current Republican party stinks. However, there are issues I refuse to sell out even if they are in the 20%.
I just can't be behind them after what they did with four years of W in the White House while having control of Congress. Talk about selling out. Big spending. More government. They just haven't given me anything I can support them on, not even "family values". They've done nothing for those values since they've been in office, save one important exception. I guess I just expected a lot more from the Bush presidency, especially given the congressional control the party had early in his term.
"With the threat of hell hanging over my head like a halo..."
Knucklehead wrote:I would actually agree that the current Republican party stinks. However, there are issues I refuse to sell out even if they are in the 20%.
I just can't be behind them after what they did with four years of W in the White House while having control of Congress. Talk about selling out. Big spending. More government. They just haven't given me anything I can support them on, not even "family values". They've done nothing for those values since they've been in office, save one important exception. I guess I just expected a lot more from the Bush presidency, especially given the congressional control the party had early in his term.
Boy, Don't get me started on W and the current Republican Legislators. I agree completely. However, I'm not at the point where I'm ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater yet. Look, I'll end up voting for the candidate most capable of defeating Hillary or Obama. I just wish a bigger than life Reagan type would ride into the picture and save me from the mediocre folks out there right now.
I still think I may run. Would anyone on here vote Knucklehead '08?
Knucklehead wrote:Look, I'll end up voting for the candidate most capable of defeating Hillary or Obama.
Yeah. I guess that's where we differ. The Republicans won't get my vote and if they lose, it's their fault, not mine. They're going to reap what they've sown. I gave them a vote the last two elections and now I feel guilty about it. I'm not doing that again.
"With the threat of hell hanging over my head like a halo..."
- By Ill flame
- By PAmedic
- By AATL
- By Sly Fox