Sunday February 7, 2016
Jump to content
This is just my view but I thought I'd throw it out here and see what some of the rest of y'all have to say about it.
It is my belief that during the Presidential campaign of 1976 had the Republicans had the "guts" to turn out their sitting President (Gerald Ford) in favor of Ronald Reagen we would never have had the 4 year presidency of Jimmy Carter. Meaning that Reagen would have beat Carter (who beat Ford).
While this year is different there is a similarity that I see. I believe the only Republican in the field who can attract independents, tea-peeers, even some disenfranchised Democrats is Ron Paul. But I don't think the "rank and file" Republican establishment REALLY want to give him the nomination due to his core Libertarian beliefs. In other words, while they talk support of individual liberties they really don't believe in it. They are just trying to keep the tea-peeers mollified.
So, do you think the GOP will have the guts to actually consider Ron Paul as their nominee?? Or will they "wimp" out again, like in 1976?
I tell you this. Ron Paul is the ONLY individual in the GOP field that I could even consider voting for. Any of the rest just means I (personally) hold my nose and vote for Obama. I bet I'm far from alone in this feeling. What you say?
I believe your not a libertarian, just a socialist leaning liberal. I base this on your past postings on a variety of social, cultural, and political topics. A true believer of the if it doesn't physicaly hurt you or someone else, it should be ok. Ron Paul has proven to the thinking person, he is a full blown nut job, period. The smartest one of the whole Republican bunch on all issues is Newt Gingrich, hands down. But he is not a pretty boy, has some personal bagage, and is a Washington insider. Mit Romney is the old money party establishment choice, a professional politician, has the image of being Presidential, middle of the milk toast road on most issues. Has lot's of money. But I don't think he can overcome his Mormon status with most voters, picking a President. A reality check, like it or not. Perry, a good looking good ol' boy who's entire political life is based in Texas. Not real sharp without a lot of coaching. No real big money to go the distance. Rednecks and hard core Christian right love him, but not enough outside of Texas. Herman Cain is the rising dark horse (no pun intended) candidate so far. Not a professional politician, not a Washington insider. Actualy a successful self made CEO for a variety of large Corps. Intelligent, actualy answers most questions put to him honestly. Speaks with people on a level they understand. The only one to get any traction on a serious overhaul of Fed tax system plan. Had a real job outside of politics, understands economics. Libs ,socialist , and Acorn type blacks are scared to death of him, so I like him. I think it will boil down to milk toast big money Romney, and the outsider Cain. Cain's lack of campaign money staying power and an hatchet job liberal media could really blow him out of contention. I hope not. I'm so sick and tired of professional career politicians who will pander to every special interest group they can.. Example> Obama
I believe you don't read well enough to infer what I am from my posting. So, I'll inform you. I'm a fiscal conservative (Don't believe in spending more than you make- - -no bounced checks, mine or the gov't) AND a social liberal. I don't believe in government attempting behavior control through policy (tax or otherwise) or law. Ron Paul has a "touching respect for the constitution as written" (I read that quote somewhere)
That alone makes him far superior to any of the candidates (either party)
I agree (with you) that some of his positions are not to my liking, BUT it would be interesting to see what happened if he actually had the chance to govern. I would hope the actual power of the position would moderate some of his more "strange" views.
As for the Newt. I believe He is the biggest hypocrite in the race!!! A several time marital cheater who wanted to hang the other guy for the same offense He was practicing at the very same moment. He is also the biggest panderer to current "political winds" going as his pandering to the tee-peeers makes very clear. His views are in no measure sympatico with the tea party movement. He is a big spending, big government republicrat who pretends to be a small government conservative. A complete and utter joke who would be landslided in the general election worse than was McGovern years ago. I'm surprised you'd be so fooled by a complete "elitist" such as him. I bet you'd support Sheriff Joe for president wouldn't you? You've amazed me with your myopia!!
But, thanks for taking the time to respond with your views. It was quite informative!
Don't ever under estimate a Mormon.
Religion should not have any effect on any election any where.
Character, brains and common sense goes a long way being a leader or follower.
Seems all of it has been missing in elections every where for quite awhile.
Please explain in detail the following statement from your post. "...As for the Newt. I believe He is the biggest hypocrite in the race!!! A several time marital cheater who wanted to hang the other guy for the same offense He was practicing at the very same moment."...In detail with facts not suppostition.
While leading the charge to impeach Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky "event" (SHUDDER) The newt was involved in an affair (while still married to wife # 2) with another woman. She has now become wife # 3. She is also the wife who he apparently spent oodles on at Tiffany's and took off on a lavish vacation with, which led to his entire campaign staff resigning. If that's not enough detail for you do your own google search! My opinion is that Newt Gingrich is one of the biggest "elitists" out there. Someone with an extremely inflated ego who thinks HE always knows better how to run OUR lives. I don't want him anywhere near the Presidency!
PB Re: Comments to Don Evans. "I believe you don't read well enough....". "You've amazed me with your myopia!!" You are the person who has called for a "civil discourse" on many occasions. You also call for critical thinking and reasoned conversations in many entries. I suggest to you that your remarks on occasion lead to personal affronts and contradict your stated goals. An opinion need not be an affront or insult. Unless that is what you intend, please consider your tone before you post.
Evans is the poster who uses words like "jerk" to describe others. He did so (without censure or reprimand) on a post about the unfortunate shooting incident in Tonto Basin. called both folks involved jerks in a very insensitive post. He has also repeatedly harassed me and made snide and insulting comments. I'm doing my best to be civil toward other posters here. I don't need (or desire) advice about my posting from you. I just tried to speak in a manner HE would understand. He likes using labels to categorize people without knowing a dag gone thing about the poster. I don't like being called a "socialist". It is far from the truth. When he decides to post civilly, I will respond in kind! YOU are not the moderator here. I suggest you stick to issues and not attempt to criticize other posters!
Mr. Lemon. Well , you have been told by the voice of Gisela. Your and my OPINIONS are on the hit list of the above and not to be tolerated. But that's ok, not much to do down there anyway. Alabama Gov. George Wallace, once personaly campaigned in Gisela for the Presidency I'm told. Had lot's of supporters there. Tells you all you need to know. Have a nice day.
PB You accepted my thoughts in a manner that gives credence to them. Usually , I do not respond to your posts because it serves no purpose. So ....
I welcome you not responding to me. Saves me trouble. Stick with your buddy Mr. Evans. His comments are continually revealing of his intellect. Like the comment about Gisela and George Wallace. I've heard that Wallace did visit Gisela during his campaign. However I was not even a resident of this State at that time so his disparagement of the residents of Gisela is completely irrelevant to me personally. Just another one of his many attempts to denigrate anyone He doesn't agree with. This time He's attacking the entire community I guess. Off the mark as usual. Recently Tom started a thread about tactics like Evans uses. You should read it. End of the matter as far as I'm concerned. Now I know not to pay a whole lot of attention to your views either. Thanks!!
There were many people who went to Gisela on the day Gov. Wallace was there. Not all were what you call rednecks which incidentally are some of the best people anywhere. My dad was born in Gisela.
They were not there neccesarily because they were going to vote for him. It was a very interesting experience. The barbeque dinner was great. (:
He came in by helicopter but we never saw it. He landed somewhere near and came in a car.
There were Federal Marshalls with rifles on top of the buildings and many secret service people in the crowd. It was a cold rainy, muddy day, and one of the residents who was on a horse started to get his gloves out of his pocket. Before he got his hands out two secret service agents had him off the horse and on the ground. I was amazed at the speed it happened.
One secret service man who was black had on a beautiful silk suit and black patent shoes wading around in the mud stuck out like a sore thumb. Of course with my warped mind I went over to him and said you must be a secret service agent. He laughed and said "how did you guess? I am supposed to be in Flagstaff for a formal affair tonight. Do you think anyone else will notice me?" We both had a good laugh and visited for quite a while.
If anyone objects to me using the word black. Keep it to your self because I don't know what politicaly correct word to use and probably wouldn't use it anyway.
This post is fantastic! Wonderful and humourous story. Thanks for sticking up for Gisela. We do have some miscreants and neer-do-wells here (as do most places) BUT we also have some wonderful people who think and behave with responsibility. Gisela also has some great history. Your ancestors were probably a part of creating that history. You have a right to be proud of them! Personally, I LOVE living in Gisela. A place where (more than most places) a person can live their life without undue interference from Gov't. Heck, we get virtually left alone. Driven our road lately? If you need outside assistance You better be prepared to wait awhile. Typical response time for the authorities is about 30 minutes. Gisela was settled BEFORE Payson. Fist white settler- - -Davy Gowan. Yep, the same Davy Gowan of Tonto Natural Bridge fame. Thanks for being so, well YOU!
There are three things I have gathered from this post so far. PB would vote for Ron Paul before voting for Obama. The majority of this post, including me, believes that Newt is the smartest man in the room. There seems to be a consensus that Romney is a favorite son of the Republican elite, and here it comes, At least half of us want see Herman Cain continue and perhaps go all the way.
PB, your comments about Gingrich from the 80s is based on the liberal talking points of the day. He was the voice of reason that defeated Hilary care and they hated him for it. His marital seperation, eventual divorce and remarriage was nothing like the media would have us believe, just ask his daughter who has written about it.
Many things Ron Paul says make sense to many....but watch him wind up and go off on his tangent and I for one would worry about the results of that in a meeting of the national security council and resulting actions therefrom. I have more faith in his son Rand and watch for him to rise in the future.
As for Gisela, most folks there know me. I lived there fifteen years ago and kept contact with more than a few of those residents. I don't believe they are all in harmony with your beliefs. But things could have changed. What does Duke Say.
I'll say it again, I'm tired of politicians and I'm looking for a statesman. I want a leader who puts country before self, people before pride, responsibility before relief. We have had our fill of 'politicians' who have wormed their way into the citizenry by promising special favor. Those special favors always have a hook attached and the hook is loss of freedom. The Government cannot give us anything. WE already have it and it's not the governments to give.
I want us.... to have a leader.... who says it's time for the government to respond more to the people...stops pandering to the special interest lobbyists......has plans to eliminate the free lunch programs.... who teaches that in order to participate in the wealth, you must participate in the production.
Zig Ziglar made the example clear by saying, there are many who stand in front of the stove of life and say "give me some heat and I'll put some wood in you." But we know that doesn't work.
Prime the pump, fuel the fire, produce and recieve, Find me a man or woman who will put us back to work and they have my vote. First you must sow, then you can reap. An absolute truth.
You are incorrect. Nowhere have I claimed I would vote for Ron Paul over Obama!
I quote myself- - from above:
I tell you this. "Ron Paul is the ONLY individual in the GOP field that I could even consider voting for."
The word was consider. I'd have to hear him answer some pertinent questions about some of his positions which I find frightening. A quality response would make a difference in my opinion of his leadership "sense".
What I like (about Paul) is his "reverence" for the constitution as written.
Newt! Yes He is a smart man. I agree. So was Jimmy Carter. So was Clinton. So Is Obama. Smarts ain't enough I've come to believe. It takes fiber. A moral compass that is based on our founding documents.
What I want in a potential President, (at least partially).
I want an A+ student of History. Somebody who really gets the reasons global events occurred.
I want someone willing to lead! Not afraid of the consequences of speaking truth to us all.
Someone who doesn't compromise JUST for expediency.
Someone I can be proud of as the American spokesman and leader.
Someone who will stand up to those in our society who are "baseless" in belief and want to bring the country to the lowest common denominator of behaviour and belief.
Someone who will put the "whole" above the "political contributor", the country above the "party".
I'd bet you have no problem with this list. Weigh in here.
If Newt gets the nomination. landslide Obama.
Cain, while homespun. Well, just wait awhile the information about his past and character just keeps coming and coming. His freshness and anti-politician image is appealing. The reality of his views are not. Evans called Paul a nut-job. I won't do that to Cain but..........
Another (bigger) landslide if He was the GOP nominee. It will never happen though.
We're probably looking at Romney vs. Obama. Just one more time of a sad choice. Almost every election since I became eligible to vote (1968). A sad commentary on these two parties that dominate. Make a list of the two (major party) choices we have been given since 1968. Is this really the best we can do? Is this the "cream of the crop" of potential American leaders?
Guarantee me You wouldn't inflict your religious code on the country as a whole and I'd have no problem endorsing YOU to lead. You couldn't be much worse than some we've had.
As to Gisela. I speak ONLY for myself. I claim no representation for anybody or place. I'm the "voice" of me. It was Evans who made the reference. Evans who tried to put (another) label on someone. There is no one "behind me" (as he repeatedly asserted for a time). No one beneath me. I wouldn't want to stand on anybody else, just my own two feet. There may be someone (or thing) above me, I just don't know how to properly reference him or her. I like the Native Americans term of "Great Spirit" but I admit to not knowing how to access this entity. I long ago lost the ability to pray. My loss I'm sure. For anyone interested I was raised in a protestant denomination called Assembly of God. They speak in tongues. For many years the women were not supposed to cut their hair or wear makeup. Dancing was forbidden. Alcohol usage, too. I rejected the belief system many years ago as fraudulent. Apparently, so did the denomination as nowadays the women wear plenty of makeup, wear their hair in any fashion and wine (at least with dinner) is apparently OK. It seems God's laws are subject to change. Muslim's believe so, too as Mohommad emerged from his cave with new (and different) Laws of God 1000's of years ago. I never quite understood that concept (still don't). I prefer a God whose laws don't change due to circumstance. Someday maybe I'll find one :-)
PB, Nothing I said was meant to be an attack or to take out of context anything you said. I took some of your responses and drew my own conclusions and I'm sorry if that was wrong.
Tonight I watched my two favorited Republican candidates answer question in a non antagonistic
meeting before a Texas political action committee forum. I was very impressed. Furthermore, In my opinion, these two men are brightest most honest candidates this country has put forth since Ronald Reagan and perhaps even before.
Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich were given the opportunity to respond to current concerns and respond to each other. I won't say more. If you'd like to watch the debate if you missed it, than go to this website:
"these two men are brightest most honest candidates this country has put forth since Ronald Reagan and perhaps even before."
Your quote (above) referring to Cain and Gingrich.
I know you don't usually answer my questions but I'll ask anyway.
You REALLY believe that? Cain is a guy who refers to women as "flowers". Who wants to raise taxes on EVERYBODY but the rich. Who says the poor are poor because they want to be. Crazy talk!!
I'll give you this. It's starting to look like Newt might win by default. As the last man standing :-)
One last question (for now!)
Are you a tea partier? Willing to claim belief in (and allegiance to) the Tea Party?
Us posters have a right to understand any bias behind your posts, no?
Stand up and be counted. Are you?
I have found it is best to ignore some posters on here.
Some no longer exist as far as I am concerned.
You have more brains in your little finger than some have in thier head.
Mr. Naughton I am not naming names. Just stating an opinion and how I deal with people I don't like.
See I am still posting to you. (:
Dear Papa Bear, It is obvious to me that we don't agree on many issues and I have no problem with that. What you will continue to get from me are my opinions and feelings on a variety of issues and they may or may not be what you believe. I have no problem with you expressing your opinions, some I find humorous, some I find sad, but that's my opinion and you should only take it personal if you have doubts about your opinions.
What's amazing to me is your desire to pick my responses out of a list of other responses to make your point. You don't have to disagree with me by name, just make your point. You may find that I actually agree with you and may even reverse my opinion.
I give you my blessing to disagree with me. You already have the right to express it here. If we choose not to agree on any given issue, then let us agree not to be disagreeable.
Nice post! I agree. I've responded to your comments because they are some of the only comments I find interested in responding, too. Partly, and precisely, because you show depth of intelligence and a desire to think and perhaps even contemplate. I have challenged some of your views because I strongly disagree with those views NOT because of any animosity toward you personally.
How about it. They're aren't many of us on here FOR debate. I posted a list of my Presidential characteristics that I was looking for, in response to yours. No response from you.
I asked if you still though Cain of the kind of quality you posted earlier, even gave a nod to Gingrich's rise. No response. I would LOVE to disagree amiably with you and would hope to agree from time to time as well. But it takes tolerance- - -on both of our sides.
I haven't (so far) seen much tolerance for my more moderate views (ie. abortion rights) from you or most of the few other posters here so far. I accept a portion of the blame for that because of my natural confrontational approach. Which I'm attempting to moderate and attempting to use more humor. You seem to me (I apologize if I've inferred incorrectly) to be against intrusive governmental interference in our lives. YET insist on wanting legislation enacting YOUR moral (religious) views on others, like my family. I see that as contradictory. I've tried (nicely I think) to attempt to point out that contradiction. You've not responded. If my challenge angered you I (again) apologize, THAT was not my intent. Rather, to initiate some good debate that would lend you (I hoped) to understand my position and perhaps, make you think harder about mine.
I look at this forum as being all about that kind of thing. Otherwise it is a complete waste of our time. I want to learn from you and other posters. I only want you to consider the validity of my thought and opinions. WE should be able to do that without being disagreeable.
Maybe people that think posting on here is a waste of time should stop posting.
Not all things put on here are for debate. Just comments, opinions, or something they have seen around town.
Some post jokes, or things that are happening to them, not for debate.
There should be threads for the mundane. I think there are. Feel free to visit and post on them.
I suggested one such thread to Tom within the last week. Sorry, I'm not stopping posting just yet.
I hope that won't sour your day.
PB, This is not an excuse, but I went back to work and now work full time. I no longer have the time to spend on this forum, something I sincerely regret. as to your recent post which states
"I posted a list of my Presidential characteristics that I was looking for, in response to yours. No response from you." I never saw it. I wish I had because that is a discussion I believe we should all have.
Next, you don't make me angry, no one makes me angry. I and I alone am responsible for my emotions and though sometimes my responses may be harsh they are only meant to be my strong feelings on the subject and not intended to discourage discourse.
Papa Bear, You have a great talent for creating discourse. I'll bet you were one of the great debaters in your class. I admire your spirit and your fortitude in bringing forth your opinions and further admire your depth of intelligence gathering to make your point.
I once thought you might be an adversary but now realize you only part of the audience.
Posting comments requires a free account