Alejandro's Thread

[Vatar]

Two habitual liars debating each other might be entertaining, but it doesn't do anybody any good.   Ron Paul debating Obama?  Now THAT would be good.  Unfortunately it will only happen in my dreams.

     Ron Paul would meticulously pick apart every decision that President Obama has made in the past 4 years and give him cross referenced historical facts that back up his argument.  Ron Paul is polling third, consistently, and I am fairly sure he hasn't been paying off a bimbo to keep quiet so I don't think he is in danger of a scandal.  I can't say the same about the rest of the republican party especially Gingrich, I wouldn't be surprised if he has a whole litter of illegitimate children.

[alejandro]

Ron Paul is the only one who can defeat Obama, because many Democrats would vote for him instead of Obama.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html


and about "debates" - there's been no such thing as a debate EVER on US televised Presidential hopefuls. Because the candidates get thrown questions they are allowed to respond to instead of bringing up what really matters, and if they do, they probably get shut up by the host real fast.

I mean, they're not asking RP about the Federal Reserve and bringing home the troops, or how to get jobs back from China, they always ask him something like "why do you love Al Qaeda and Osama, and why do you wanna destroy Israel, Ron?"

[Vatar]

Oh no I agreed with everything Alejandro said ... the apocalypse is definitely here.  Time to consult my cojones for a decent survival strategy.

[Eddie Coyle]

Oh no I agreed with everything Alejandro said ... the apocalypse is definitely here.  Time to consult my cojones for a decent survival strategy.

No, it's kick the chair time when you're agreeing with him...even if the broken clock theory is applied.

[Flaxen Hegemony]

Flaxen I don't read your posts they are far to long. 

Thx.

[Flaxen Hegemony]

     When it comes to a debate...probably a draw. It would be similar to Nixon-JFK in '60, the substance vs style paradigm would be unavoidable. I've always viewed Gingrich like Nixon, very smart, but thoroughly unlikeable. Obama is an empty suit, but has Reagan's/JFK's charismatic skill-he ain't saying shit, but makes enough people think he is. Gingrich, however, has so many damn skeletons in his closet and his comments about Palestine make me think his foreign policy would even worse the Dubya's.

          In a general election...Gingrich would carry the states you'd expect him to-but those states are generally less than 7 electoral votes...he won't win any major states north of Kentucky. Obama's electoral victory would be 395-143

Agreed on the electoral situation, and that would be Newt's downfall.  For all his individual skills as a candidate, he doesn't have national draw, and hails from a weak region. The Nixon vs. JFK debate is a decent analogy, but I'd say Gingrich isn't quite as bad as Nixon, and Obama isn't quite as polished as JFK. 

Listening to both Gingrich and Obama, and discounting what they are saying, I maintain that Newt has a more pleasant cadence, and could actually hold his own in "style" points.  Maybe I'm alone in that assessment, but he has a deliberate calmness to his delivery that is very appealing. 

All this gains him only my ear, not my vote.  If you could drop Newt's brain into Romney's handsome mug, you'd have the Terminator of GOP candidates.

[alejandro]

SR 32 Bill Still & the Republican Presidential Debate

Bill Still is also the creator or the documentaries "the money masters" and "the secret of Oz", and possibly a Libertarian Party candidate for the Presidency.

[analog kid]

Gingrich has flubbed and stuck his foot in his mouth, constantly, and he's had his hat handed to him in the debates by Michele Bachmann, of all people. There seems to be a pattern of vastly overestimating the current candidate de jour.

[The General]

Ron Paul is the only one who can defeat Obama, because many Democrats would vote for him instead of Obama.

and about "debates" - there's been no such thing as a debate EVER on US televised Presidential hopefuls. Because the candidates get thrown questions they are allowed to respond to instead of bringing up what really matters, and if they do, they probably get shut up by the host real fast.

You're right. When it gets to the national election, we'll see the same old staged debates.  It always makes me nauseous to see them.  Especially the town hall style where hand picked members of the 'audience' will ask questions from a microphone in the aisle.  A pregnant woman will ask about abortion, a hispanic gentleman will ask about immigration, a parent of a soldier will ask about Afghanistan, an obviously gay person will ask about 'gay rights', etc.  Not one real person will stand up and say, "How do you corrupted sons of bitches live with yourselves?  The government creates an economic bubble, bursts it, then bails out the ones who benefited from the bubble??  You should all be in jail."

[The General]

Gingrich has flubbed and stuck his foot in his mouth, constantly, and he's had his hat handed to him in the debates by Michele Bachmann, of all people. There seems to be a pattern of vastly overestimating the current candidate de jour.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.  Bachman certainly did.  And Newt would be a disaster for the republicans, he can't beat Obama.  Can't.  Because you put those two together on TV and it's over right there.  Puffy old Washington insider white guy VS dashing young black man that got Osama bin Laden?  It's over already.  Which is why I think the fix is in.  The republicans don't want to win.  It's not their turn yet. 

[Marc.Knight]

It's not their turn yet.

The Republicans still have a "what's best for me" mentality instead of actually strategically planning for a collective win.  If one observes the diseased thinking evident in the primary process, that will open a window into the inner workings of our deluded government. 

[analog kid]

It's over already.  Which is why I think the fix is in.  The republicans don't want to win.  It's not their turn yet.

It's not over for Hunstman, and he could win, I believe.

[MV/Liberace!]

When you have a weak and vulnerable sitting president, you go with the safer opposition, and that's Romney.  It may seem paradoxical, but strategically, IMO Newt would be a better opponent if Obama was popular.

if romney is the nominee, i'd rather see the republican party LOSE the presidential election in 2012.  i can't stomach the idea of another big government republican further destroying the republican party (and consequently, contributing to the the destruction of our nation).  i will stay home, just as i did in 2008.

[MV/Liberace!]

Ron Paul is the only one who can defeat Obama, because many Democrats would vote for him instead of Obama.

i think there's a lot of truth in this statement.  also, it points out just how similarly we all really do think, regardless of what political ideologies we claim for ourselves as individuals.  freedom, democracy, and purely constitutional ideas always win over ideologies, and that's why ron paul's candidacy is so powerful. 

[Tara]

I used to work in a very liberal workplace, so I know people like Obama as well as the back of my hand.  Because of his beliefs, I have always found Obama to be extremely repulsive to look at, even repulsive to listen to.  I'll vote for anyone who isn't a Marxist.  Don't want a RINO as president, but he /she won't do as much damage as Obama.   I know Ron Paul is the darling of Coastgab, but please God, don't force me to choose between Obama and Paul.  No, I'm not Jewish, but I care about Israel and don't like Paul's foreign policy ideas.   

Also, please don't go into long-winded diatribes about why Ron Paul is the closest thing to the second coming.  We already know how you all feel.  Never place so much hope and adoration on any individual.  You're placing your power outside of yourselves. 

[MV/Liberace!]

Also, please don't go into long-winded diatribes about why Ron Paul is the closest thing to the second coming.  We already know how you all feel.  Never place so much hope and adoration on any individual.  You're placing your power outside of yourselves.

tell us who you DO support as the republican nominee.  chances are i'll be able to tell you with confidence and clarity why that person stinks.  none of the other republican candidates impress me as being particularly inspiring, unique, or detested by powerful people.  you see, i WANT a president who is hated by powerful people.  none of the other candidates are boat rockers or reformers.

[alejandro]

C2CAM - 2011.12.13 - Space & Faith


C2CAM - 2011.12.13 - Space & Faith - Info


C2CAM - 2011.12.13 - Space & Faith

this guy seems to post every frikkin show just after it airs - at least until C2C stop him
I wont post any more of his stuff, just check his username or subscribe to him if you want.
http://www.youtube.com/user/damjerminator#p/u

[Frys Girl]

No, I'm not Jewish, but I care about Israel and don't like Paul's foreign policy ideas.

So move there.

[Vatar]

So move there.

I agree we need do focus on The United States. If you don't feel that this country is the best for you or your family you have the option to expatriate.  Israel has nuclear weapons if they are in true danger they will use them against an aggressor if the need should arise.  We need to halt all foreign aid until every American that wants a job has a job and we are creditor nation once again.

[Frys Girl]

I agree we need do focus on The United States. If you don't feel that this country is the best for you or your family you have the option to expatriate.  Israel has nuclear weapons if they are in true danger they will use them against an aggressor if the need should arise.  We need to halt all foreign aid until every American that wants a job has a job and we are creditor nation once again.

For the past 50 years, this country's presidents have obsessed over foreign nations. Time for a leader who puts USA first, second, and third. Foreign entanglements are an expensive, pointless, and illegal deadend.

[analog kid]

I used to work in a very liberal workplace, so I know people like Obama as well as the back of my hand.  Because of his beliefs, I have always found Obama to be extremely repulsive to look at, even repulsive to listen to.

Wow. That's fairly insane.

[The General]

For the past 50 years, this country's presidents have obsessed over foreign nations. Time for a leader who puts USA first, second, and third. Foreign entanglements are an expensive, pointless, and illegal deadend.

Exactly, FG.  They've also bankrupted us. 

[Flaxen Hegemony]

I used to work in a very liberal workplace, so I know people like Obama as well as the back of my hand.  Because of his beliefs, I have always found Obama to be extremely repulsive to look at, even repulsive to listen to.  I'll vote for anyone who isn't a Marxist.  Don't want a RINO as president, but he /she won't do as much damage as Obama.   I know Ron Paul is the darling of Coastgab, but please God, don't force me to choose between Obama and Paul.  No, I'm not Jewish, but I care about Israel and don't like Paul's foreign policy ideas.   

Also, please don't go into long-winded diatribes about why Ron Paul is the closest thing to the second coming.  We already know how you all feel.  Never place so much hope and adoration on any individual.  You're placing your power outside of yourselves.

I think you know why your post is generating such a negative reaction from a few people.  You find Obama "repulsive to look at"?!?  Are you serious?  No political issue, NOT A ONE, is worth having that intense of a reaction.

It is unfortunate, because I think the basic point you make after getting rid of all the sarcastic garbage is a valid one: that a Republican with uncertain conservatism is still better than a certified liberal.

[b_dubb]

For the past 50 years, this country's presidents have obsessed over foreign nations. Time for a leader who puts USA first, second, and third. Foreign entanglements are an expensive, pointless, and illegal deadend.

they've done this so corporations could move production overseas where they could drive down costs by paying people slave wages.  in the process of exporting manufacturing they also exported our technology.  which these formerly piss poor countries now use to produce products at low low costs.  so low American companies find it difficult to compete.  after all ... Hyundai makes a pretty nice car for the money.  from what i am told

[Flaxen Hegemony]

For the past 50 years, this country's presidents have obsessed over foreign nations. Time for a leader who puts USA first, second, and third. Foreign entanglements are an expensive, pointless, and illegal deadend.

??

[Vatar]

??

I heard George Bush was a German history buff.

[Frys Girl]

they've done this so corporations could move production overseas where they could drive down costs by paying people slave wages.  in the process of exporting manufacturing they also exported our technology.  which these formerly piss poor countries now use to produce products at low low costs.  so low American companies find it difficult to compete.  after all ... Hyundai makes a pretty nice car for the money.  from what i am told

  The reasons are many, but I'd say it's been bad for all participating nations and dictators.

[Flaxen Hegemony]

if romney is the nominee, i'd rather see the republican party LOSE the presidential election in 2012.  i can't stomach the idea of another big government republican further destroying the republican party (and consequently, contributing to the the destruction of our nation).  i will stay home, just as i did in 2008.

I hear you, Michael.  But the basic problem inherent in the political system is that logistics and infrastructure will always favor the Romneys, Doles, and Carters.  I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but you and I both know that if he was the nominee, the rank and file Republican bank accounts would support him half-heartedly at best.  In the short term it sucks, but I think in the long term, it IS better to gain a Romney victory and live with a RINO for 4 years, than it is to get absolutely nothing when Obama is ripe for defeat.

[Ruteger]

Even employing the term "ass-clown" pegs you as an anti-intellectcual. You really want four more years of this Administration? Such a hateful, and insipid, intolerant characterization of a man coming from a supposed "intolerant Liberal" is beyond me. Show me ONE INSTANCE where Rush Limbaugh has ever referred to a Democrat in such hateful language. I dare you.

[analog kid]

a Republican with uncertain conservatism is still better than a certified liberal.

I would argue that the Republican would be more damaging, real conservative or not, because they're pretty much unanimously still pretending that supply-side economics hasn't been a middle class destroying disaster.