[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Oldest Rock song on RP - kurtster - Mar 28, 2024 - 1:06pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Irony 101 - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:15pm
 
Breaking News - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:58am
 
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App - pradler4kant - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:57am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - newwavegurly - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:48am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:46am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:27am
 
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:07am
 
Wordle - daily game - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:00am
 
Ukraine - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:41am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
 
NYTimes Connections - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:29am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - pilgrim - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:19am
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:44am
 
Trump - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:29am
 
Outstanding Covers - thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 7:40pm
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Mar 27, 2024 - 5:08pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Please Don't Post Here - Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
 
Motivational Office Cliches... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - miamizsun - Mar 26, 2024 - 4:10pm
 
Israel - R_P - Mar 26, 2024 - 12:24pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
 
Food - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 25, 2024 - 6:56pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 25, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands) - kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
 
China - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
 
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b... - jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
 
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and... - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
 
Orbiting Earth - oldviolin - Mar 24, 2024 - 9:42am
 
Basketball - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers - sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
 
2024 Elections! - Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
 
Economix - R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
 
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great" - miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone - Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
 
Great guitar faces - skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Despots, dictators and war criminals - R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Uploading Music - dischuckin - Mar 18, 2024 - 11:55am
 
Media Matters - thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
 
MEALTICKET - drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 7:31pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » I'm a Dem. Which Republican would you recommend I vote for? Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Post to this Topic
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 1, 2011 - 8:32am

 sirdroseph wrote:


You sound like Ron Paul.{#Wink}Seriously though, if you really believe this you must have serious reservations about all of the candidates except Paul.

 
I do.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 1, 2011 - 8:26am

 kurtster wrote:


Not anymore.  Our economy is really based upon making money on financial transactions.  All the wealth being created is on Wall Street, where it comes from transaction commisions.  Making money on money changing hands.

Look at how much money is made just on ATM fees.  Our manufacturing sector is the smallest it has ever been since the dawn of the industrial revolution.  The MIC is part of the manufacturing sector. 

War costs us money, it no longer makes us money.

 

You sound like Ron Paul.{#Wink}Seriously though, if you really believe this you must have serious reservations about all of the candidates except Paul.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 1, 2011 - 8:22am

 rosedraws wrote:

Scary stuff... media/political/corporate entanglements.

I've always figured that War is one of those things that, once you get into office and know the TRUTH... you realize the entire US economy is actually supported by war.  If we thought the threat of the automakers closing was bad, imaging if the war machine was turned off or scaled back... unemployment would skyrocket to 20% as the millions of supporting businesses went belly up.  It would be catastrophic.  And who knows what delicate balances of power would supposedly be dipped into some other superpower's favor.  What leader is willing to do that to America to set us right?  I doubt Ron Paul would even be able to... the prez only has so much power.

But of course, I think these things should be transparent, discussed, and with plans to move away from War as a basis for economic stability... 
 

Not anymore.  Our economy is really based upon making money on financial transactions.  All the wealth being created is on Wall Street, where it comes from transaction commisions.  Making money on money changing hands.

Look at how much money is made just on ATM fees.  Our manufacturing sector is the smallest it has ever been since the dawn of the industrial revolution.  The MIC is part of the manufacturing sector. 

War costs us money, it no longer makes us money.
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 1, 2011 - 5:57am

 Monkeysdad wrote:


All good points. And as far as the military is concerned?! Right now we have the smallest fighting force in our history since World War I(NPR, last week) Who's going to space? China...Russia, the same folks who're building-up their militaries to counter,...what? The smallest military in US history?

Meanwhile, back home, we have an administration that is content to spend hundreds of millions upon millions on "shovel-ready" projects(how's that working out America?) and alternate energy sources that a) fail b) get sent to other countries or c) my current favourite...send money to Brazil to drill for oil off of their coasts because we aren't willing enough or evidently smart enough to do on our own.
Absolutely GD right there isn't a template for what we're facing, and this administration isn't looking for a template to fix it either!
 
Actually, in Illinois, I have seen many "shovel ready" projects, and I think that more would be great.

In Seminole County FL there are so many unemployed construction workers that are homeless that the school buses have changed their routes to pick up kids at homeless shelters. "Shovel ready" projects would put these people to work (the parents, not the kids, duh).

Our next war will not be fought by soldiers, it will most likely be a cyber war. The military is becoming an anachronism.

Alchemist

Alchemist Avatar

Location: San Jose, CA
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 10:30pm

 rosedraws wrote:

Scary stuff... media/political/corporate entanglements.

I've always figured that War is one of those things that, once you get into office and know the TRUTH... you realize the entire US economy is actually supported by war.  If we thought the threat of the automakers closing was bad, imaging if the war machine was turned off or scaled back... unemployment would skyrocket to 20% as the millions of supporting businesses went belly up.  It would be catastrophic.  And who knows what delicate balances of power would supposedly be dipped into some other superpower's favor.  What leader is willing to do that to America to set us right?  I doubt Ron Paul would even be able to... the prez only has so much power.
 
Actually I think the military would be one of the *least* disruptive areas to cut, economically speaking. 

But you have to realize Ron Paul is the only candidate (in either party) who is actually serious about scaling it back. 
Alchemist

Alchemist Avatar

Location: San Jose, CA
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 10:19pm

 islander wrote:

It's a wedge issue. People are fairly set, and it becomes a 'with us, or against us' checkbox that both sides use to cleave out blocks of support.
 
This is why the two party system is so broken.  But maybe not for much longer - check out The Declaration of Independents
Monkeysdad

Monkeysdad Avatar

Location: Simi Valley, CA
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 9:22pm

 kurtster wrote:


The collapse of the economy that Carter and Reagan had to deal with was largely because of the war machine winding down from Viet Nam.  We also had extremely high unemployment for all and especially the veterans, who were held in the highest contempt and even openly spat upon.

Please remember that we are still dropping 500 lb bombs made during WW II.  There will be no post WW II booms anymore.  War has become so specialized and the niches are small.  Plus NASA isn't doing anything anymore so there is another arm of the MIC ( Mil Ind Comp) that has little to do.  If the space sector of manufacturing is lost due to inactivity, we truly become a second rate power.  Space has a lot more to do with things than just launching rockets.

Bringing the troops home while it is something I am in favor of, will only add to the unemployment rolls.  Sure some will go to college and become educated, but for what ?  There are not enough jobs, period.  We are at a real crossroads.  There is no template for what we are facing.  The Great Depression model does not hold water on this one, except for things like Glass - Stegall and other banking reforms directly related to it ( GS ).

 

All good points. And as far as the military is concerned?! Right now we have the smallest fighting force in our history since World War I(NPR, last week) Who's going to space? China...Russia, the same folks who're building-up their militaries to counter,...what? The smallest military in US history?

Meanwhile, back home, we have an administration that is content to spend hundreds of millions upon millions on "shovel-ready" projects(how's that working out America?) and alternate energy sources that a) fail b) get sent to other countries or c) my current favourite...send money to Brazil to drill for oil off of their coasts because we aren't willing enough or evidently smart enough to do on our own.
Absolutely GD right there isn't a template for what we're facing, and this administration isn't looking for a template to fix it either!

Romulus

Romulus Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 8:25pm

The troops come home, but they are still in the military, meaning they still get paid, yes? They are active duty even when this country is not a war.

If we ended these wars, consumer and investor confidence would skyrocket. The jobs would come. Besides, a slow economy does not stop the grass from growing or snow from falling.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 3:43pm

 Romulus wrote:

Look at the boom we had after WW2? This is what I'm talking about. The free market, consumer confidence will all increase, not to mention when we bring home 500,000 troops, they will be buying houses, cars, dining, etc. So the same thing that lead to the baby boomers, will create a boom in our economy after we end the wars, bring our troops home and start trading with countries again.

GE will just have to make more light bulbs instead of bombs, they will survive. The weapons industry will adapt and remain intact and produce useful items. :) It can happen.
 

The collapse of the economy that Carter and Reagan had to deal with was largely because of the war machine winding down from Viet Nam.  We also had extremely high unemployment for all and especially the veterans, who were held in the highest contempt and even openly spat upon.

Please remember that we are still dropping 500 lb bombs made during WW II.  There will be no post WW II booms anymore.  War has become so specialized and the niches are small.  Plus NASA isn't doing anything anymore so there is another arm of the MIC ( Mil Ind Comp) that has little to do.  If the space sector of manufacturing is lost due to inactivity, we truly become a second rate power.  Space has a lot more to do with things than just launching rockets.

Bringing the troops home while it is something I am in favor of, will only add to the unemployment rolls.  Sure some will go to college and become educated, but for what ?  There are not enough jobs, period.  We are at a real crossroads.  There is no template for what we are facing.  The Great Depression model does not hold water on this one, except for things like Glass - Stegall and other banking reforms directly related to it ( GS ).
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 2:36pm

 Romulus wrote:
Look at the boom we had after WW2? This is what I'm talking about. The free market, consumer confidence will all increase, not to mention when we bring home 500,000 troops, they will be buying houses, cars, dining, etc. So the same thing that lead to the baby boomers, will create a boom in our economy after we end the wars, bring our troops home and start trading with countries again.

GE will just have to make more light bulbs instead of bombs, they will survive. The weapons industry will adapt and remain intact and produce useful items. :) It can happen.
  Only if they can find jobs. And many of those troops are young, with relatively little education and experience outside of service. Finding a job is difficult for everybody right now, and service folks sometimes come to the job market with strikes (real or perceived) against them.

But yeah, we need to bring our troops home. Irrespective of the economic considerations.


Romulus

Romulus Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 2:25pm

 rosedraws wrote:

Scary stuff... media/political/corporate entanglements.

I've always figured that War is one of those things that, once you get into office and know the TRUTH... you realize the entire US economy is actually supported by war.  If we thought the threat of the automakers closing was bad, imaging if the war machine was turned off or scaled back... unemployment would skyrocket to 20% as the millions of supporting businesses went belly up.  It would be catastrophic.  And who knows what delicate balances of power would supposedly be dipped into some other superpower's favor.  What leader is willing to do that to America to set us right?  I doubt Ron Paul would even be able to... the prez only has so much power.

But of course, I think these things should be transparent, discussed, and with plans to move away from War as a basis for economic stability... 
 
Look at the boom we had after WW2? This is what I'm talking about. The free market, consumer confidence will all increase, not to mention when we bring home 500,000 troops, they will be buying houses, cars, dining, etc. So the same thing that lead to the baby boomers, will create a boom in our economy after we end the wars, bring our troops home and start trading with countries again.

GE will just have to make more light bulbs instead of bombs, they will survive. The weapons industry will adapt and remain intact and produce useful items. :) It can happen.

rosedraws

rosedraws Avatar

Location: close to the edge
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 8:00am

 Romulus wrote:

lol. Yeah, and Mitt keeps a low profile too,, he refuses a lot of interviews. It's odd, I've never really met anyone who was excited about Mitt. I think the white shoe boys of the GOP are just trying to play their best card.

But there's a reason why the top networks pump up these guys, GE owns half of NBC and they don't just make lightbulbs, the are deep in contracts for weapons of war too. So it's a big club, and they (the establishment) want to push these guys who are good for their warfare industry and maintaining the status quo.... thus ol Uncle Ron gets ignored, marginalized and his message distorted. I don't think that's working out to well, Paul has good support, people are waking up and growing tired of the wars and unstable economy.
 
Scary stuff... media/political/corporate entanglements.

I've always figured that War is one of those things that, once you get into office and know the TRUTH... you realize the entire US economy is actually supported by war.  If we thought the threat of the automakers closing was bad, imaging if the war machine was turned off or scaled back... unemployment would skyrocket to 20% as the millions of supporting businesses went belly up.  It would be catastrophic.  And who knows what delicate balances of power would supposedly be dipped into some other superpower's favor.  What leader is willing to do that to America to set us right?  I doubt Ron Paul would even be able to... the prez only has so much power.

But of course, I think these things should be transparent, discussed, and with plans to move away from War as a basis for economic stability... 

Romulus

Romulus Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 7:04am

 rosedraws wrote:

This is becoming more and more apparent in the past couple decades.  Terrifying really.  I mean, whom they chose to cover and who they don't? — it has zero basis on the democratic process, and has EVERYTHING to do with who wins.

Last week I checked the polls, to see what was up with the nutcases like Bachman, Perry, and Cain having so much popularity... but the reality is the Mitt has been a strong favorite all along.  You'd never know that from the media!!

Check out how strong Mitt is in NH.

The media has fallen into this extremely dangerous place of having to be entertaining, so they jump on the weird, the extreme, the dynamic... thus, no Mitt coverage.
 
lol. Yeah, and Mitt keeps a low profile too,, he refuses a lot of interviews. It's odd, I've never really met anyone who was excited about Mitt. I think the white shoe boys of the GOP are just trying to play their best card.

But there's a reason why the top networks pump up these guys, GE owns half of NBC and they don't just make lightbulbs, the are deep in contracts for weapons of war too. So it's a big club, and they (the establishment) want to push these guys who are good for their warfare industry and maintaining the status quo.... thus ol Uncle Ron gets ignored, marginalized and his message distorted. I don't think that's working out to well, Paul has good support, people are waking up and growing tired of the wars and unstable economy.

rosedraws

rosedraws Avatar

Location: close to the edge
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 6:35am

 Romulus wrote:
I think though, there is a danger in letting the media choose our candidates, which is what they do. It was Cain, now they are pumping up Newt and Romney. Ron Paul's base is very strong. And he's solidly in 2nd in Iown and 3rd in NH. That is pretty good for a guy who gets the cold shoulder from the establishment.
 
This is becoming more and more apparent in the past couple decades.  Terrifying really.  I mean, whom they chose to cover and who they don't? — it has zero basis on the democratic process, and has EVERYTHING to do with who wins.

Last week I checked the polls, to see what was up with the nutcases like Bachman, Perry, and Cain having so much popularity... but the reality is the Mitt has been a strong favorite all along.  You'd never know that from the media!!

Check out how strong Mitt is in NH.

The media has fallen into this extremely dangerous place of having to be entertaining, so they jump on the weird, the extreme, the dynamic... thus, no Mitt coverage.

Romulus

Romulus Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 6:26am

Trying to keep this thread on topic....

 
rosedraws wrote:

Thanks.  I'm really liking the more positive tone in this thread... it's more of a "this is why I like my guy"... and I've found all the links useful.

From the looks of it, it's narrowing down to Mitt and Newt (who we love to kid about what a fun ticket they would be as prez and vp).  But I don't think NHites will stomach Newt's meanness and blatant philandering.

I like a lot about Ron Paul, but he's too anti-government for a Dem like me.  We like civility and social safety nets and the arts and stuff.  I really don't understand why he's not more popular in NH than he is.  But I can't research his stand on the issues because he has such an awful website!  I like your link though.

It's possible I could vote for Ron Paul for that one issue — I'm as anti-war as they come.


 
That's great. And I think that is why a lot of D's and I's are supporting him. He is truly anti-war and pro-civil liberty. I like that about him.

I think though, there is a danger in letting the media choose our candidates, which is what they do. It was Cain, now they are pumping up Newt and Romney. Ron Paul's base is very strong. And he's solidly in 2nd in Iown and 3rd in NH. That is pretty good for a guy who gets the cold shoulder from the establishment.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 2:38am

 prickelpit96 wrote:

 

Holy shit.

Can you freaks think of anything else than of war, when something happens you cannot understand?


 
Response is here to avoid a thread jack
bokey

bokey Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2011 - 1:42am

 prickelpit96 wrote:

 


 

To imagine that one of those unholy candidates, that obviously are unable to understand the problems , become president lets me shiver. Communication is the way, not war!


 
Welcome to my world.

prickelpit96

prickelpit96 Avatar

Location: Where the grass is green and the ball is round, meet me in the stand behind the goal.
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 29, 2011 - 11:59pm

 kurtster wrote:


Just a comment on Iran.

The British Embassy was overrun and set on fire in Tehran.  This takes us a step closer to a crisis.

I'm not looking forward to any military action in Iran, but it seems like we will have little choice now.

 

 

Holy shit.

Can you freaks think of anything else than of war, when something happens you cannot understand?

What a horrible bullshit talking of not having a choice! Did you learn anything from the last decades? Anything from the last wars? Iraque, Afghanistan for example? Has anything gone better in the region since the Alliance of Americans, Britains and whoelse has been trying to take over those countries?

No! Nothing is better down there. And the world has not become a safer place anyway.

And how do you think you could pay all those wars? From taxes? From the sparkling economy in the US?

Go and inform yourself about the moral in the troops and —-most important—- the financial background. There is NO money left for a new war. And there is no need for a new war since the last 2 wars you started left countries in chaos and did not help anybody in the region.

 

Try to find Iran on world map. And then INFORM YOURSELF about the people, the government, the development in the last years and how the world could get rid of the unholy president of Iran.

 

//edit:

Iran is one of the leading countries in the region and its rise is product of the breakdown of Iraque as a counter weight. One important thing about Iran you should keep in mind is that the country is far away from beeing homogenous. The government and the religious leaders are just one part, the other part is a very young society whose members are very, very displeased about the politics in their country. Many of them try to leave the country and find freedom and jobs in western countries. They communicate via Facebook and other social networks to word their situation to the world.

Its absolutely counterproductive to start a war against the country, it would be clever and smart to support the opposition in order to force the government to change the politics and help the people to free themselves.

 

To imagine that one of those unholy candidates, that obviously are unable to understand the problems of a region that feels suppressed by the way we try to lead the world, become president lets me shiver. Communication is the way, not war!


// edit2:

Try to figure out how a government feels, when they think of the following part of  a map:

What would you think? 

It takes more to be the leading country in the world than to have big weapons....

MrsHobieJoe

MrsHobieJoe Avatar

Location: somewhere in Europe
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 29, 2011 - 11:18pm

 kurtster wrote:


Just a comment on Iran.

The British Embassy was overrun and set on fire in Tehran.  This takes us a step closer to a crisis.

I'm not looking forward to any military action in Iran, but it seems like we will have little choice now.

 


I'm not sure how you get from that a to b. I suggest we should consider closing our consulate there though.
rosedraws

rosedraws Avatar

Location: close to the edge
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 29, 2011 - 6:35pm

 Romulus wrote:
 
Rose, kudo's to you for voting. I think it's great that you're shaping the debate in who might face Obama. Ron Paul is the best option for D's. There are so many D's and I's that are crossing over just to vote for him. Checkout this great read on the Huff post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html


In the end, make up your own mind with thorough research. An informed voter is the best voter.
 
Thanks.  I'm really liking the more positive tone in this thread... it's more of a "this is why I like my guy"... and I've found all the links useful.

From the looks of it, it's narrowing down to Mitt and Newt (who we love to kid about what a fun ticket they would be as prez and vp).  But I don't think NHites will stomach Newt's meanness and blatant philandering.

I like a lot about Ron Paul, but he's too anti-government for a Dem like me.  We like civility and social safety nets and the arts and stuff.  I really don't understand why he's not more popular in NH than he is.  But I can't research his stand on the issues because he has such an awful website!  I like your link though.

It's possible I could vote for Ron Paul for that one issue — I'm as anti-war as they come.

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next