� do you regret it yet?

Ken,

Kind of funny how the Obama supporters have been so quiet lately. Makes one wonder a bit!

We can only hope they have the awareness and conscious to say "yes".

"I won," he says, as if the majority of the electorate endorsed his policies.

How many of those who voted for him voted for his policies?

Not many, I betcha.

Isaac emailed me a very interesting video clip regarding this. I forwarded it to Les and asked him to post it on in this forum.

I doubt a majority of those that voted for him, can even tell you his policies.

"I doubt a majority of those that voted for him, can even tell you his policies"

They certainly couldn't up to time of election. Still uncertain...

Was at a nephew's birthday party last night and a bunch of folks were bashing Phelps for screwing up his career with the bong pictures this week.

I just looked at them and said, "You're bashing a college kid for taking a hit right after the American people elected somebody president who was STUPID enough to write in his autobiography about how he got through college only by the use of booze, weed and cocaine? Does anybody see the stupidity here?"

Total silence.. The sheeples are still asleep.

Who expects libiots to be logical?

Or as Lenin called them "useful idiots"!

Most Obama supporters are not going to regret voting for him! The game is over for them. 50% of his voters do not even watch the news or even care what happens politically. All his winning was just a reason to dance like idiots for a night and embarrass themselves. The campaign was like a movie, or a basketball game to some americans!! As for me...... I wanted Huckabee.

I voted for Obama. No, I'm not "a liberal". He was the better of the two tickets and not by a little.

If you are a social conservative or single issue voter (guns, abortion, etc), then you will disagree with me, perhaps violently <g>. I'm not a single-issue voter. I voted for who I thought was the better candidate for the times, overall. McCain is a good man but he's old, rigid if not calicified mentally, and didn't give the impression that he even wanted to win- especially at the end there. His decision making is suspect, as witnessed by choosing Palin for... for... uh... her gender and rabid social conservatism, maybe? Maybe? Not much else there.

Obama is doing fine so far, not that there's much "good" to be done. He's interfacing with Congress, listening, and trying to project calm (which McCain was TERRIBLE at). Let's face it- he's [bleep] just like McCain would have been. The economy is a MESS and it's not his doing, and there's no magic wand to wave to fix it. Let us not forget who our fearless leader was for the 8 years prior, and who gave away a trillion dollars to THE WRONG PEOPLE (if there even are "right people" for such stupidity) on his way out the door.

You want to tell me that Republicans are fiscal conservatives, warn me first so I don't blow beer out my nose, OK?

If McCain had won, we'd be going down the same path we are going down now- right? Can we all admit that? We'd all be complaining about the stupid McCain economic stimulus package. he'd be drawing down the war in Iraq over the next 4 years. The rhetoric might be different, but the results would be more or less the same.

As to Obama partying in college... give me a BREAK... who DIDN'T!? George W. Bush snorted coke, smoked pot, and drank like a fish... yet we all voted for HIM.

I know posting this won't endear me to some of you. Oh well. Hopefully you'll at least have some respect for the fact that I ain't gonna lie to you or pretend to be something I'm not. I'm a hippie redneck <g>, live out in the woods, got my guns and trucks and chain saws, but I also got my guitars, mountain bikes, and skiis...damned if I will close my mind and just swallow what the RNC or DNC is putting out. I'll use my own head and decide on the candidates on a case-by-case basis.

Respectfully,

-jeff

I think you did too many drugs.............

Gawd you're an idiot.

I believe McCluckity took a dive, I voted for the Republican party as usual. I just hope we have a better canadate running on the Republican ticket in four years.

Just don't forget, we had TWO PEOPLE to choose from. It wasn't Obama versus some mythical wonderful Republican who was God's gift to America... it was Obama against McCain. I would not have voted for Obama if there's been a viable other choice.

I'm out of here. I can see where this is going. No point hanging around getting abused... grin...

Ain't no one crying over the departure - don't kid yourself.

Jeff, I understand your distaste for McCain.

But what in the hell gave you the idea Obama was viable?
I'd rather the damn white house be empty,

I have to agree!

I would like to challenge you on that. I didn't vote Obama and challenge your assertion that I am a single issue voter.

He will go for increasing the cost of owning a handgun, restrict guns and ammo, not a doubt in my mind.

He will and has been using the economy as a way to strengthen liberal ideals and dependence of government and increase government spending..

He will increase funding for abortion and lessen any restrictions.

He will weaken out national security by cowering to the ACLU and other liberals who feel detainees should have the same rights as U.S citizens.

We will NOT see any steps towards drilling oil and lessening our dependencies on foreign oil, instead we will dump millions if not billions in to technology that will not make a difference in the short run, and maybe will not pan out at all in the long run. It will be money spent on experimentation on pet projects that won't pan out, money that the private sector should be spending on new products.

He will dump millions into Global Warming, millions that will vanish into thin air, or go to liberal think tanks and liberal programs in the name of Global Warming.

Obama will increase the power and influence that the United Nations has over this country and her funds.

Now I won't tally illegal imigration against Obama, becasue on that I agree, McCain would have been just as bad, neither will do a damn thing about it.

I could go on, but I'll let you catch up, where am I wrong, how does that make me a single issue voter?

What happened to that one dude that ran him mouth all over the place?

No matter which of the two won the election, both were going to be stuck in a schitty situation and most likely do a schitty job at fixing it. On the major issues, as Jeff stated, we'd get more or less the same deal. The thing that no one wants to admit, he's actually right.

Nope, you're just an idiot.

No, more like the Phantom $hitter". Leaves a big steaming turd, and leaves so as not to take the heat.

We may not agree with each too much around here Mr. Barkoff, but as far as this post goes I say Hoorah...........

Nice job!

People who voted for Obammy were hoping for a handout. Pure and simple. He sure has insituted change hasn't he? His cabinet is mostly Clinton era employees. Change my ass! The guy is a lying wastoid!

Les where is that video clip?

So you voted for a Marxist who believes in income redistribution, moronic global warming, abortion on demand, homos in the military, total confiscation of civilian firearms, appeasement with terrorists and a grand total of 143 days as an active senator. Not going to call you an idiot, but thanks a whole pantload ace...jorge

Hardly. McCain wouldn't be setting up the census under the WH so as to gerrymander congressional districts. McCain wouldn't be cheerleading a $800 billion dollar pork sandwich with 90% payoffs to special interests and 10% to stimulus. McCain wouldn't have picked an AG who is so anti-gun he makes Reno look conservative. McCain wouldn't be getting ready to fill Ginsburg's seat with a communist.

Neither would have been perfect for the current economic situation, but what some of you less than enlightened individuals don't yet realize, Obama is focused on changing the country in a manner that if successful, you will wake up one morning asking WTF did I do?

,...with big ears.

You and trashely judd should hook up......you both need help! Thanks a lot to people like you who voted the libiot in! NOT! Remember what you did in 4 years and try not to make the same mistake again! It costs us all...... not just you!

Are you talking about the economy or over all?

You believe McCain would have been the same on gun control, abortion, the United Nations, and terrorism, and drilling for oil?

No, I won't admit Jeff was right, with all do respect.

McCain could have slept the first 3 weeks and we'd be better off than all that Skippy has done to this point.

*clink* to one of my very observant PA boys.


Hell, I can't tell the difference between any of them anymore. All I hear are screeching voices promising me how great they'll make things only to watch all of them diminish my rights and take more of my money to pay for things I do not want.


Get rid of all the politicians and we might get somewhere.

And he put that horrible, wretched Hillary in a position where she will get additional attention and coverage that will infuriate me every time I am forced to see her.
And that, is an unpardonable sin against all humanity. He will burn in the deepest, darkest pits of Hell for that.

No doubt about that.

Maybe not abortion, which I could care less about, but on everything else I think the differences would have been so negligible that it would be hard to see the difference.



What were McCain's stances on gun control, illegals and bailouts for banks?

Considering Obama cared enough about gun control to put it on his campaign website and now on his .Gov website, I'd say gun control is a lot more on his mind than McCain's.

Considering Pennsylvania's anti-gun Governor, I guess we can assume such things aren't as important to PA boys.

The way I see it, one is pushing for, the other against.

We will see in two years how much support the liberals have. I am thinking they will be makeing a lot of promises to continue unemployment bennies if reelected, but that is after none of the many promises that were made have been kept. But some people are stupid enough to keep on beleiving lies.

Yes, no difference. McCain was tortured by the "Progressives" in Viet Nam. Not waterboarding , but broken bones and beatings. That is OK since progressives, terrorists, crimminals, etc are the victims of society. If someone takes action to stop the evil they are accused of being intolerant against a wronged group.

On the other hand, Obama is a self admitted progressive that attended Socialist Party meetings and sought out the Marxist professors in college as stated in his books. He sides with the mass murdering dictators and against the founding principles of USA. Obama seems to want all citizens to be subjigated to the state. That is slavery for all except the ruling class.

No, not much difference at all!

It is difficult to engage a Democrat in a civil discussion. I find great pleasure in politely baiting them into their all too familiar vulgar personal attacks. Ken in Oregon

Yeah, we've got the rest of you beat with the biggest panzy liberal governor in the country. Now if we could get rid of Pittsburgh and Philly, we'd be a very red state.

Dinglebarry is holding the trump card for the next 4 years. All he has to say is, "It's Bush's fault."

Yeah, well,...if he wants to be a member of the ruling class, he has to maintain the agenda of the ruling class,...just like the rest of them.

Yeah I've hear all that but when it comes down to issues, how did McCain differ from Obama on the AWB or gun show loophole? Or how about illegals?


I always hear all this talk about the differences between the 2 parties but when it comes time for legislation, it looks like we have nothing but one great big giant liberal party irregardless of what letter they paste on their jackets.

How can you say that when the congressional GOP just voted 100% against the porkulus? And only 3 out of 46 Senators voted for it.

I see far more differences, than common positions.

Because the same GOP that voted against the stimulus were the very ones who voted for the $800 Billion bank bailout when Bush was still in office. They're also the same ones who voted for every single spending increase in the past 8 years that pushed our Debt from $5.7 Trillion to over $11 Trillion.

Remember, earnmarks and pork were at record levels during Bush's presidency. Not until Dems took the House in '06 did Bush actually veto a bill with pork.


How is anyone to believe there's actually a difference here?

So McCain opposed a new AWB and voted against the last one. Meawhile Obama has repeatedly called for not only a new AWB but wants ALL semi autos' banned.

What part of this are you confusing as the two being the same?




Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types

* McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans.
* McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.
* McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."

Source: Campaign website, www.johnmccain.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007

Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban
McCain spoke generally of the need for some tighter gun controls on hardened criminals and children. In Congress, he pressured his colleagues to require background checks for buyers at guns shows, and he supported a requirement that trigger locks be sold with handguns. But the Senator opposed the two major gun-control measures of recent years, the 1994 ban on several types of assault weapons and the Brady Bill, which required a 5-day waiting period for handgun purchases.
Source: Todd S. Purdum, New York Times, p. A14 Aug 17, 1999

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/John_McCain_Gun_Control.htm

OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions

* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

BS. The GOP congress caused the first bailout to die. It was only when Pelosi got some blue dog Democrats to come back over that it passed Congress the second time.

There had never been a bill remotely like this when the GOP was in charge of Congress. Not even remotely.

The GOP passed a stimulus in 2001 that contained only tax cuts and tax credit, none of this political payoff and special interest pork. Not to mention it cost 1/10th as much.

Maybe this part.


John McCain's Gun Control Problem

by John Velleco
Director of Federal Affairs

In 2000, Andrew McKelvey, the billionaire founder of monster.com, threw a sizable chunk of his fortune into the gun control debate.

It was shortly after the Columbine school shooting. Bill Clinton was in the White House and gun control was daily front-page news. McKelvey wanted in.

He started out contributing to Handgun Control Inc., which had since been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But while he agreed with their gun banning goals, McKelvey thought the way they packaged their message was too polarizing.

John McCain

John McCain
"I told them that Handgun Control was the wrong name. I thought what they were doing was great but I thought it could be done differently," McKelvey said.

So McKelvey struck out on his own and formed Americans for Gun Safety. Although AGS shared almost identical public policy goals as other anti-gun groups, McKelvey portrayed the group as in the 'middle' on the issue and attempted to lure pro-gun advocates into his fold.

To pull it off, he needed a bipartisan coalition with credibility on both sides of the gun debate. On the anti-gun side, the task was easy. Most of the Democrats and a small but vocal minority of Republicans supported President Clinton's gun control agenda.

Finding someone who could stake a claim as a pro-gunner and yet be willing to join McKelvey was not so easy. Enter Senator John McCain.

McCain's star was already falling with conservatives. He had carved out a niche as a 'maverick' as the author of so-called Campaign Finance Reform (more aptly named the incumbent protection act), which was anathema to conservatives but made him a darling of the mainstream media.

Gun owners were outraged over CFR, but McCain still maintained some credibility on the gun issue.

Earlier in his career, McCain had voted against the Clinton crime bill (which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons), and he did not join the 16 Senate Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, which required a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun.

But as he ramped up for his presidential run in 2000, McCain, expanding on the 'maverick' theme, staked out a position on guns far to the left of his primary opponent, George W. Bush.

McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban. His flirtation with anti-Second Amendment legislation quickly led to a political marriage of convenience with McKelvey.

Within months of the formation of AGS, McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board.

Political consultant Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, hoped McCain would "bring a conservative perspective to the gun debate."

The ads not only pushed the anti-gun show measure in those two states, they also served to undermine the efforts of gun rights activists who were furiously lobbying against the same type of bill in Congress.

"I think that if the Congress won't act, the least I can do is support the initiative in states where it's on the ballot," McCain said in an interview.

At the time still a newcomer to the gun control debate, McCain said, "I do believe my view has evolved."

McCain continued to pursue his anti-gun agenda even after his presidential run ended, and the next year he and McKelvey made it to the big screen.

As moviegoers flocked to see Pearl Harbor, they were treated to an anti-gun trailer ad featuring McCain. This time the Senator was pushing legislation to force people to keep firearms locked up in the home.

"We owe it to our children to be responsible by keeping our guns locked up," McCain told viewers.

Economist and author John Lott, Jr., noted, "No mention was ever made by McCain about using guns for self-defense or that gunlocks might make it difficult to stop intruders who break into your home. And research indicates that McCain's push for gunlocks is far more likely to lead to more deaths than it saves."

Also in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor.

Pro-gun allies in Congress who were holding off gun show legislation -- which would at best register gun owners and at worst close down the shows entirely -- were angered when McCain teamed up with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and introduced a "compromise" bill to give the issue momentum.

"There is a lot of frustration. He has got his own agenda," one Republican Senator told Roll Call.

After September 11, 2001, McKelvey and McCain, now joined by Lieberman, had a new angle to push gun control.

"Terrorists are exploiting the gun show loophole," AGS ads hyped. McCain and Lieberman hit the airwaves again in a series of radio and TV spots, thanks to McKelvey's multi-million dollar investment.

A Cox News Service article noted that, "The ads first focused on gun safety but switched to terrorism after Sept. 11. Americans for Gun Safety said the switch is legitimate."

However, Second Amendment expert Dave Kopel pointed out that, "the McCain-Lieberman bill is loaded with poison pills which would allow a single appointed official to prevent any gun show, anywhere in the United States from operating."

Ultimately, the anti-gun legislation was killed in the Congress and AGS fizzled out and disappeared altogether. The issues for which McKelvey spent over $10 million are still in play, however, and John McCain remains a supporter of those causes. In fact, as recently as 2004, McCain was able to force a vote on a gun show amendment.

In the post-Columbine and post-9/11 environments, the Second Amendment was under attack as never before. Pro-gun patriotic Americans who stood as a bulwark to keep the Congress from eviscerating the Constitution were dismayed to look across the battle lines only to see Senator McCain working with the enemy.

John McCain tried running for president in 2000 as an anti-gunner. This year it appears he is seeking to "come home" to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long.

http://www.goapvf.org/mccain.htm

Nah, you'd be pretty much wrong on that. You're using a pretty wide brush to paint there, my friend...

Obama voters are "CLUELESS IDIOTS" IMHO

Yep.

But what are Republican supporters who blindly vote for the GOP even as they get exponentially more liberal every year?

I just added 2 more numbnuts to my ignore list......

A vote for McCain was a vote for the lesser of two evils. A vote for Obama was a vote against the 2nd amendment, personal success, national security, etc. You couldn't be more of a disappointment Jeff.....



Yep.....you got yours so who cares about your kids, their kids or anyone else.

lol

Say it ain't so!

DITTO I need not say more

That is the way I see it. McCain was not my first choice but was the better of the two. We won't know the real results of the last election for at least four more years and maybe not then.

I am not one to panic and will give this president a chance but so far he has not done anything to make me smile.

Chupacabras.

....launched.

.....you linberal queers have NO 9dea about what we're smokin'/ jokin' about.

real chupas,...

Make that 3 more...

Might as well add me, too. I stepped even more outside the box, didn't vote for Obama or McCain. Voted for Bob Barr. May have not had a chance, though I agreed with his politics thus he got my vote.

You're just confusing the whole issue with facts and logical reasoning. You can't have an honest dialog with a liberal. Their ideology just won't allow it. How could a liberal ever run on their actual platform? What are they going to say?

We say that we're for "sensible gun ownership" but what that really means is that we would like to legislate away gun ownership as much as possible because there is no reason for a person to own a gun...and besides the 2nd Amend was meant only for militias like the national guard.

We say we're for free speech, but what we really mean is that we would like to legislate away any speech that is negative to our positions, like talk radio, Fox News, etc. But we're OK with flag burning. We're also against racist speech, that should be a crime....what a minute..we already made it a crime. We're also against free speech if it means political donations to politicials groups that we don't support. What we are for is the public funding of offensive and/or vulgar and/or blasphemous displays that someone out there calls art.

We say we're for tax cuts, but what we really mean is that we want to send welfare checks to people that weren't paying any taxes to begin with. We have no interest in cutting taxes for people that own businesses or create new jobs. If you can find a small business owner that supports us, let us know, because we can't. We're happy to "create jobs" as long as they're government jobs and hopefully we can fill them with minorities. That works out great for us because they're impossible to fire no matter how incompetent they are...and they also make great allies when we're in charge.

We have no interested in immigration reform, we don't even pretend to because most of these folks will likely vote for us, so long as we continue to provide every immigrant, legal or otherwise, with every social service that we have.

We like to pretend that we're patriotic, like wearing a flag pin, when its popular to do so, but when it isn't, then we don't have to pretend anymore. The military budget is always the first one that we look to cut. It makes perfect sense to put a liberal political hack in charge of CIA, because we really hate those guys the most. Hell, all they are are a bunch of mercenaries that are out of control, burning villiages and torturing innocent folks. We had those guys pegged when we were spitting on them at the airport in the 1970's...its just that we grew up and now we're running the country.

We're for the separation of church and state, but what that really means is that we're against christians. We're fine with muslims..and any other group out there that generally hates this country. Even through we're supported by many jews in this country, we generally hate the Israelis and look at them like the true terrorists in the region, sort of like we view the US.

We say we want the world to respect this country again...what we really mean is that we need for the British, German, and French tabloids to "like" us. Never mind that they never will, but we have to try because they're better and smarter than we are. That means not acting like the superpower that we are. And besides, Europe had to endure 8 years of a "cowboy" like Bush.

We should never have poked our nose into Iraq...the UN was handling things over there just fine. Just like they do everywhere they intervene. Saddam was getting rich, so was France, Germany, and Russia....and we messed it all up.

We say we're the champions of education, but what we really want is to throw as much money into it as possible. Never mind the lack of results or accountability, there is no problem that govt can't solve by spending more money on it. Never mind that DC spends $12k per year, per child and has the lowest national scores...doesn't matter because that money is paying a lot of liberal teachers and administrators that we count on for votes. We're against vouchers (even though they are wildly popular with the average folks...you know the voters) because once people pull their kids out of the social experiment that school has become, the cat is out of the bag. We're perfectly fine with counties spending more for administrator that they allocate for the students...hell we top that everyday with the Dept of Education. We need that 40 story office bldg in DC, where there are no kids, but plenty of PhD's and secretaries, and fancy offices, and think tanks, and computers and files..because there has to be plenty of fat to go around. Come on a lot of folks work in these offices and we're trying to "create jobs".


See what I mean...there is no way to have an honest dialog with a liberal. Their entire platform is built on a foundation of lies.

heff, you are one stoopid man.

I might strongly disagree with Jeff's choice but he did take the time to outline his reasoning. It would be nice to see those who disagree with him at least explain their position like TomSmith above instead of resorting to 3rd grade name calling.

How do people expect to change minds by throwing insults?

"He's interfacing with Congress, listening, and trying to project calm"

Standing in front of the cameras and saying we need this (stimulus) now or face catastrophic consequences is really projecting calm. Dinglebarry is a socialist.

You have a valid point, but the choice to vote for Obama was an emotional not a rational one in many cases. It's about feeling good, and not a lot of mind was brought to bear on the decision.

Slick marketing 101 and it sure sucked in at least one here!

JorgeI is correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama's a socialist cancer, a racist, a liar, a baby killing, homosexual supporting, mega spending, terrorists loving, military weakening, economy killing, unexperienced, crook supported, American hating, sorry excuse for a citizen let alone president and commander and chief!!!!!!!!

Obamination voters have elected the absolute worse president and congress EVER!!!!

Socialism and liberalism are both cancers that should be killed.

May God forgive and save this once great nation...America.

What's to explain? 'heff' uses every opportunity to push his 'Bush hatred.' And nothing he says shows me anything but his left-wing idiocy and wishful thinking. Instead of quietly shutting up and just being quiet about a stupid choice, 'heff' will forever try to defend his stoopdity - which is classic for a former druggie and hippie.

Bush was a disappointment in many ways. But I believe Bush also tried to be a patriot (in his way). The "immaculate magic negro"* is just another Chicago thug, who wants to shape the country into their dispicable image.

Just look at that bastard Rohm Emmanual. Or Rev wright. Or Bill Ayers, or Farrakan, or Jesse Jackson, or bamster's stoopid wife!

I don't like any of those people nor anything about them. And I won't got there!

* Is that 3rd grade enough?

Well I have some choice third grade words for Rohm Emmanual myself.lol


That guy is just evil.

Well Rrroae, you and I can agree on that! Cheers.



It truly beggars me that some poliwhores and so-called citizens (democraps in this case) actually want to destroy their country. Have a hard time getting my head around that!

So very, very, very true. They boxed up "hope" with a pretty multi-colored ribbon of diversity and peace....and sat it next to a media derived Bush bash....and then there was Palin to REALLY botch the scene. It was hard to watch....but it worked for them.

Train wreck...on all accounts. JMHO.

People who still think there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans are starting to remind me of this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvTNyKIGXiI

There's nothing wrong with Palin, but the men and women who hate her will "derive" something.

Is ringing oratory or bewitching stagecraft ever a reliable presage of eventual actuality?

Woooooooooba....dude. Really, I never said I 'hated' her. Hard to get me to hate much, aside from ppl who abuse children and animals.

Matter of fact, I have little doubt she has a good heart and her priorities are decent. That said, her lack of knowledge on important issues didn't help the ticket. T'was all I was saying.....

Now that's foooney! I don't care who ya' are!

crackhead barry was his street name

Jane this isn't directed at you.

The people I've spoken to that hate Palin say she's stupid. I ask exactly how they come to that conclusion but they can't/won't give an intellignet answer. It's usually the couric interview that they recite. Gimme a frikken break. She had zero prep time before she stepped onto this stage and frankly I think she was far too reined in.

I wonder if bammy could tell us what biden's career accomplishments were in congress? Notice I didn't say the opposite. lol

If your campaign slogan is "bringing Hope for Change", then you never really have to accomplish anything to fulfill it....

Houndgirl ..... Okay, I misunderstood you. My apology.

Palin is as knowledgeable as 40-plus other governors on non-state/domestic issues.

One tragedy will be necessary for her to succeed in politics outside of Alaska however. She will need to become cynical and aware of how ugly the people are who mean to destroy her and people like her family and friends.

To bad such 'evil people' can't just say to themselves "that Palin is different from them."

And then leave it at that!

No problem, at all, man.

I don't understand the loathing of Palin....as it seems silly and misdirected.

That said, I see the frustration that some have with how things went down. I think some were hoping for a quick hitter that could tangle intellect(knowledge) and wit with the best of them (them...being the media and other politicians). She was new to the game and fell short....and some might say she fell TOO short for what the party needed in 2008.

Skippy, Skippy, I kinda like that moniker for the Majestic One. Who came up with that name in an early post in this thread? I like it. He gives a couple of skips before he goes into full shuffle. Skippy the Majestic, His Excellence. Amazed myself again...

And to Jeff O, you my fellow campfire member,,,you are a TROLL.

g

Jeff O is far from a troll.

You're right. That's not fair to trolls.

The president [whoever] isn't elected, he's appointed. Your vote doesn't count. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVlZTWH7u8w

Where's Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth when the country needs them?

Agreed.

Party line followers, who march lockstep to whatever their () party decrees, are dangerous to the continuity of this nation.

That said, any gun-owning, hunting, fishing, working-for-a-living American who voted for Obama is truly moronic.

Lot of theory here - let me give a real and hard example of the impact of Obama's election.

My partner and I have spent over $250,000 in getting a new business idea ready to launch. It would conservatively create 300-500 jobs in the next 2 years. We would invest over $10,000,000 in America made goods and services.

We have scrapped the project � why you ask? Higher taxes is the simple answer. Why should I risk $10,000,000 only to have 60+% of the profits go to taxes. Simply not worth the business risk for that low of a return. I can keep the cpaital and invest it in tax free munis with no risk.

Now when someone tells you that change was needed � tell them the real cost of that change.

Obama and his polices represent the greatest threat to America in since Roosevelt and his socialist policies.

Why in the heck would anyone with an ounce of decency or morality or intelligence or common sense vote for the liar b-ho and his pack of tax evading, law breaking, baby killing, gun grabbing, elitist Richard F. N. Craniums?

There's no excuse for stupidity. It was all out there before the election for anyone to see, unless you were blinded by all of the BS that was spread. Then again, it's safe to say that most of the b-ho supporters don't fall into the literate category anyway. MI VHNTR

The R party changed with the loss of 2 key leaders...Gingrich and Tom 'The Hammer' DeLay. They were conservative and gifted in making their case. RINO's (with W at the helm) became the power brokers. At least W stood on conservative principles with his Supreme picks.

The drifting away from conservatism has allowed Specter, Collins and Snowe to capture the spotlight....such as it is.

Let's not forget McCain in this thriller. From 2000 to 2008 he was a PITA.....

Jeff,

I knew you voted for Obama but I was willing to chalk it up to a lost soul in the Northwest.

Now that I see your explanation of why and that you still, as of right now, endorse your decision, it greatly disappoints me.

I cannot understand how you make so many posts on this site regarding stupid ballistic gack and about how much you like to shoot yet then so hypocritically vote for someone so unabashedly who would take this away from you in an instant.

Take care...

I REALLY feel sorry for you. You were caught up in his eloquent speech, his hollow promises, and his perfect manners. It is humanly impossible for him to keep his campaign promises. Anybody in his right mind could see through him. His election was won because he brought people out to vote that had never voted before AND will never vote again. You sir are the reason I constantly look at people and figure how stupid some of them are. There are plenty right here on the campfire that voted Democrap and won't admit it. The fact that you did only confirms your stupidity to me.

Actually Republican congressmen and Senators holding the line with only 3 turncoats that Obama, Reid and the media can use to claim a "Bi-Partisan" agreement, is what allowed those three to capture the spotlight.

It's actually an example of the GOP being MORE conservative since you only have 3 out of 219 Republicans siding with a liberal spending package.

How often does anybody ever vote for a presidential candidate's policies?

Did you vote for somebody else's policies?

"Policies" rarely mean anything--they change with the changing events--or they change with whatever is convenient for the current set of politicians out there these days......

I mean, if one is conservative, and paid attention to a presidential candidate's consistent set of policies while in office, then Ron Paul would be president right now........

Casey

Then you need to get your eyes checked, bro.


here's a hint....why don't you compare Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court to Roberts and Alito? Or Eric Holder to Ashcroft on gun control...or any other issue for that matter.

Do you think any Republican would be pushing a "stimulus bill" with a four billion dollar payoff to ACORN for their fraudulent assistance in the last election?

The list goes on and on.....people who say elections don't matter deserve what they get.

Yep. To bad we couldn't govern as conservatives when we owned all three branches of government....let's not forget 9/11 and the spending necessary to protect the country. The only moderates that can be counted on are dims, you know they'll vote the party line. You never hear the term DINO's.

My color perception is just fine--I can see the difference between the "D" and the "R" --and that's about the only diff......

I'm glad the R's have miracously and suddenly discovered fiscal conservatism--but where were they in October when the Wall Street/CEO Bonus bailout was voted?......let me give you a hint; They were voting in lockstep with their R president.

Now that a D pres is carrying the water, it is miracously and suddenly different?

I mean, at least there is a debate over the Main Street bailout.

But color me suspicous--there seems to be a awful lot of Republicans in the Congress/Senate who were there during 2000-2006 when the deficit went from 1 trillion to 7-8 trillion--a feat that has not been proportionaly matched since, well, WWII--not the Great Society, and certainly not during Clinton's term.

If Ronald Reagan was currently the president, and he had a D after his name, I get the feeling we would be hearing the same rhetoric about him from the Neo-Cons......

The R's have become a one issue party--lower taxes. OK, they have become a one and a half issue party, we'll throw in USSC nominees.......

You know, the minority always bank on the courts to keep them in the game--kind'a like the tree huggers did on environmental issues during RR's and Bush Sr three terms.......


Casey

Give 'em time.......

I wonder just how far and how bad it will have to get before some of you can see a difference?

If some of you can't see a difference between McCain and Obama, you just don't want to see it because you're too angry and your high blood pressure is impairing your vision. .

lol

well that may be true but I still see little difference between any of them nowadays.

We'll see if the GOP is just giving us lip service like they did during Clinton's presidency(acted all fiscally conservative to gain control, then opened the floodgates once in power) or if they somehow had an epiphany and realized neoconservative politics is just as bad as liberalism.

Here's another perspective on Obama.

I don't choose to post my resume on the internet, but suffice it to say I went to college and grad school later in life. My first job after grad school was with a consulting firm that specialized in executive assessments consisting of psychological testing and in-depth interviews of high level candidates who had already made it through the client company's screening and interview process, that is, the finalist or finalists. Nothing enhanced our credibility, or my personal satisfaction, more than busting a phony.

Obama reminds me of the kind of candidate who can snow unskilled interviewers, even those who consider themselves astute judges of people. A big reason is that most untrained interviewers allow the candidate to get into hypotheticals, or "philosophical" issues like the ubiquitous "Describe your philosophy of management". A skilled interviewer will use behavioral interviewing, boring into what the candidate has actually done, and how it was accomplished, and insisting on verifiable specifics. Obama would perform superbly in a conventional interview and would dazzle many interviewers as he obviously dazzled many voters. However, his lack of any real substance in the form of actual accomplishments would be transparent to a skilled interviewer, and he would be shot down with a recommendation against employment for any senior executive position.

Paul

That is what happens when the hangover sets in and they make promisees like................Never again!


A day or two late and $800,000,000,000 short!

Oh, I can "see the difference" between a washed up, inside the beltway, reach across the aisle, bumbling old man like McCain and a well spoken, committed, Democratic Party stalwart like Obama.............and always could.

I (like many others here I suspect), was throughly embarassed when I had to hold my nose and vote for the illegal amnesty loving, Ted Kennedy supporting, good ol' boy, neo-con from Arizona, but never let it be said that I never saw the difference.......

I definitely saw a difference. I thought both McCain and Obama sucked but there was no doubt in my mind that McCain was the �lesser of two evils�. I just couldn�t see voting for evil; lesser or greater.

When a malady of some sort is inevitable, a cold is preferable to cancer.

I think a good many votes for Obama were cast more against McCain, than for Obama.

No matter what the reason it was a terrible choice.......

I don't like the same old cabbage, so gimme a $hit sandwich instead.

� and even more against Bush.

I'd say no, but what I really mean is Hell No.

After the last eight years of endless screwups, blunders, lies and attacks on our civil liberties, coupled with that trademark Bush lack of accountability, you guys ought to display some shred of remorse or humility. Instead, you're apoplectic because the guy who you opposed is doing a good job so far. And McCain? He thinks the economic crisis is no big deal. Evidently all 8 of his houses are paid for.

A good point no doubt. I just couldn�t vote for McCain. It was an easy point for me to make being from TX where it didn�t make much difference. I�d have had more to think about indeed if I lived in a swing state but I still don�t think I�d have been able to do it.

If you can honestly say that he has done a good job during the transition and his early dealings with his own party on the �stimulus�, you are drinking a lot more than cool aid.

Obamason is in Indiana today...and the issues are in DC.
What's he running from?

He found out that governing is hard so he went back to campaigning.

So many comments, so few addressing the initial question �

� and the loud gurgling sound of the faithful still chug-a-lugging the Obama-MSM Kool-Aid.

That stuff's gotta run out some time.

Sounds like white guilt to me. Steve

Ken,

I did NOT vote for the guy, but I certainly regret that many did!

Keith

To address the original question, I don't imagine there are many Obama voters that regret their decision at all.

It was never his platform or experience that got him elected. What worked was a combination of Obama's youth and charisma, white-guilt, the milestone of being the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT, his preacher style speeches that make everyone feel great, a weak/outdated challenger, an economic crisis, and lots and lots of promises that everything that happened during the past 8 years is going to "change".

Let's be honest. Even the Clintons knew Hillary didn't have a chance. She had a hell of lot more going for her than Obama, except she isn't charismatic and despite Bill being known as the "first black president"....they quickly found out that in this election they weren't quite black enough.

I guess "change" is supposed to mean that if you think that during the past 8 years the rich got richer and everyone else got screwed (even though that wasn't true) then during Obama's rein, things are going to get evened out. Just like when Joe The Plummer asked his question about taxes, Obama's plan was to "spread things out so everyone has a chance..."

How could any Obama voter be upset about their decision so far? All those voters couldn't be happier, they're still convinced that things will be more "even" under Obama. Rich folks and corporations will get punished for their success and the little guy will get something that he never worked for. I would say wait until those things don't happen....then you'll see some angry Obama voters.

It won't run out until they find out he only meant to pay off the mortgage and gas bill of other people.

Obama took the oath a month ago--how can you tell if he's different? At this point, he's hired more Washington insiders--just like every other prez for the past 2-3 generations. And he has been primarily focused on continuing where Bush left off--on the Main Street Bailout. Just what "policy" is different in the last 4 weeks?

I'm sure if I could afford an electron microscope, I could discern a difference between the Blue Team and Red Team leaders--but from out here in the colonies, things look kinda' purple in Washington..........


Casey

Tom, 2 very good posts from you today.....


You voters that think there is no difference between red and blue need to think in extreme terms. Was there a difference between Carter and Reagan?

You know, I was reading this thread just out of curiosity and wasn't really going to post, and I didn't want my first post since joining to be like this but I feel I have to after reading the above post. I don't care WHO you voted for, simply implying that you wish that the President of the United States would be assassinated is inexcusable. So you want to see our country spiral even farther down the tubes? Because a blow like that would only kick us while we are down. There is no occasion where such a sentiment is even remotely appropriate. And I know you were most likely joking but there are some things one does not joke about.

A lot of non-shooters and non-hunters think we're ignorant already. Thanks for proving them right in your case.

I voted for McCain as most Alaskans did. Obama is a Priss and I know him from his hitting on college Freshman when he was a 3rd year Law student. He was the anointed one then as he is now.

I think that the GOP cognesti knew that that the FDIC and the general banking industry were going to tank during the primaries. They decided to let McCain who was a RINO but with some conservative elements run but they did so without 100% enthusiasm.

I think that these individuals know that Barack is in for a wild ride. The margins and debt haven't even started realizing their true potential.

I have heard a figure that our lending institutions(Banks) are presently close to 4$ Trillion in the red. That is the sum of their negative ink. Single unemployed illegal alien mothers who work at Walmart getting 200K loans on MCCrackerjack boxes. The sum of this is that the actual real estate value on many of these is 20K. When the mother loses her job she walks back over the border and lets the MS13 wreck the place. The bank is then out 200K.
The same thing happens when a couple buys a 400 K huntington beach house and they walk after losing their jobs. The bank loses that money too.
The FDIC presently requires banks to have 1.25% in cash reserves and the FDIC has only 110 billion in their reserve fund. This means that there could easily be a massive financial event that hits the banks and causes a depositor run and the bank's collapse.

I don't know if you folks have noticed that Obama has got Volker and most of Reagan's outfit to do financial battle and he is not really into Reich's new deal policy. This is because BHO knows that the rubber has hit the road and the SHTF.

I think that it is time to hunker down and grab the popcorn. Most of us on the forum, even those who voted for the "blessed" one are probably more prepared than the general population. However, now is the time to buy physical silver and shotgun shells because I am darned sure that you guys have your black rifle, mag and ammo supplies up.

Pull your savings and sit in silver. It may drop but mark my words by July you'll be saying. That crazy guy in Alaska saved my bacon.

Sincerely,

Thomas

Welcome to the 'fire.

I didn't much care for the Bush bashing either.

Thanks...now to go read a good thread

If you voted for Obama you saw on TV tonight you wasted your vote.

Because he talks of alternative energy instead of developing nuclear and domestic drilling, he never mentions those, McCain did. Alternative energy or not, we will be big oil users for at least the next twenty years, why send that money abroad, keep the dollars and jobs here.

I know you can see a difference in their attitudes on the second amendment.

Although I am pro-choice in the first trimester, I can see a huge difference between McCain and Obama, McCain pro-life, Obama pro-choice with no limitations..


McCain's record on pork spending in the congress and Obama's are night and day.

Tough on terrorism, although McCain has personal experience and is opposed to torture as is Obama, I didn't hear McCain advocating trials for terrorist. He supported a increase in troops for the surge, Obama wanted to cut and run.


Illegal immigration we are screwed from both directions..

Geeze, it's just not that hard, fellas.

Another voice of reason, welcome to the site.

Hum it seems like the surge worked. But you know Obama and the Media haven't acknowledged that. We had the biggest loss in Iraq in 9 months today 4 men to a suicide bomber in a car.

Funny how the libtards just over look that stuff because it doesn't fit their agenda.

Hope and change were the masterful use of projection. What did it mean? Whatever you wanted it to.

What do you suppose would happen to the economy if we were to get another 9/11 type attack?

I mean we're down, why not kick us just as hard as they could?

I could tell before he got elected. Far to liberal for my tastes. And he does the sidestep and teaberry shuffle quite well. A master at the old shell game.

If you thought both guys were weak, you shouldn't have even voted. People seem to think they HAVE to vote. I usually consider voting a "duty" but if I don't respect either candidate, neither one will earn my vote. Besides, if you don't like either one, you can always make a statement about the 2 party system by casting a vote for a 3rd party or write in.

I was going to do a write in candidate for the first time in my life, until that gal from Alaska came on the scene.
Then I thought "what if McCain kicked the bucket, hmmmm, Palin would be president" so he/she got my vote.

.... never mind.

I don't feel like talking politics <G>...

Nobamster .... a "good job!?"

You're as 'bright' as 'heff o!

I only asked a question!

Given certain "scenarios" and "conditions," its only a matter of time before the terrorists try!

And however many times that actually might be.

They only need be successful 'once' (per mission or campaign).

Our folks have to be 'right' 100% of the time! But no doubt, the BG's are coming.

Giving my take on the differences between the Obama vs. McCain vote to no one in particular:

1. Obama campaigned under the guise that he KNEW what needed to be done to fix the economy. Now he is back-peddling by saying he did not know it was so bad. Either he deliberately lied in campaign rhetoric or he was clueless as to the real aconomic issues...or both. McCain certainly did not come off so cock-sure about a quick-fix.

2. Our greatest financial impacts revolve around our mortgage/banking/financing situation. Those problems were primarily created by liberal legislation forcing our financial institutions to lend money to unqualified buyers in order to fill low income and minority quotas. Many Republicans went along with this liberal agenda because they were afraid to be stigmatized as rascist for standing against it. It was the mass default on those loans which helped bring on our financial crises...but remember it was primarily the fault of liberal legislation, not who was president at the time. We cannot fix problems caused by liberal legislation with bailouts or with more liberal legislation...those policies need abandoned and replaced with free-market economy policies and the right for instituitons to set their own lending rules so they and the buyers are solely responsible for their own risks. Bailing out liberal policies will be a continual drain on the economy for they never allow the institutions to set in place the policies to correct the lending requirements.

3. You cannot just vote for a President personally, you need to look at the larger picture and see what policies and legislation will be enabled by the party in power. It is the purpose of the primaries to set forth the best candidates. When that fails than we should look to which party will best represent our constitution in the legislation and appointments. You need to look at what each party's main agenda and support base represent and then whether the President will enable or stand against that agenda. We know the Democrats are now run by socialists and Obama is of the same stripe, therefore a vote for Obama was a vote against the Constitutional form of government conceived by our founders, our free market economy, and against the very fundamentals of our American society. A vote for Obama is therefore essentially a vote against the fundamentals of what America stands for.

4. If McCain were President he also would facing the same challenges as Obama with no easy fix...but he knew that going in and would not be so apt to be knee-jerk in his approach to fix it. It was obvious he thought the economy was in bad shape or he would not have sought a pass on a debate to work on the economy in congress. The congress probably had no option but to bailout the banking system in order to avoid meltdown. Now they have a bit of a breather to introduce a stimulus package or legislation which will help the economy correct by promoting business. Promoting stimulus programs which will need a constant supply of money to operate will never fix the economy.

Some of the essential things which need to happen to fix this economy are relieving companies of liberal policy business mandates and high taxes. Relieving businesses of those two items will do more to create jobs and provide revenue back to the government through personal income taxes than any tax cuts on income never earned will. Relieving businesses of the liberal policy requirements and taxes will increase their profit margins and allow them to hold on to employees at risk. As for personal taxes, I would rather pay them at the same level on real income than having a tax cut on income I don't have the ability to earn.

This approach, to some extent, would have been far more likely to happen through McCain than Obama.

5. Finally, any agenda which trades fundamental citizen rights to fix an economic problem or advance a social cause is destined to destroy the foundations upon which the whole structure stands. Again our whole American system is far more at risk with Obama in power than with McCain as President or Palin serving as President. Palin has proven her ability to administrate...Obama has not. Palin does not have national experience, but neither did Obama--therefore both would need to learn. Palin would have done far more to guide this country in line with the constitution than Obama will.

Obama is seeking to set this nation on a course which will eventually destroy its foundations, if left unchecked, and we may never be able to recover from that impact, an impact which will be far worse than what we presently face.

Yes the Republicans have made serious mistakes also...primarily because they left their conservative roots and tried to meet liberals in the middle. This is a wake-up call to Republicans and conservative Democrats to stand up for their country.

Every American ought to think about this before its too late...

But the implication of that question is despicable. Frankly, this may be my last post on this site because of posts like this. I don't want to be associated with individuals who feel such a comment is ever appropriate...whether in my personal life or online. Keep those comments up and the gun grabbers in the government will have lots of support from people who believe all of us who shoot and hunt are like you.

I liked the speech last night. He says he is not going to look backwards then turns around and talks about the "failed policy" of the last 8 years. Does he not remember having control of the house and senate the last 2 years and that he very much is part of the "failed policy" as the Senator from Illinois?

See yah!

Lighten up, Francis...

Don't let the door hit ya. Bye.

If you voted against Ron Paul,
--do you regret it yet?

Jefferson said on multiple occasions that when the Government no longer represented the will of the people, it was reserved to the people to overturn the Government by ANY means possible including revolution. I don't think Jefferson was referring to the writing of harsh letters and picketing.

Though I would never advocate assassination and I don't believe Obama has yet proven he is a tyrant, those that view armed insurrection as distasteful, forget from whence they came.

"Jefferson said on multiple occasions that when the Government no longer represented the will of the people, it was reserved to the people to overturn the Government by ANY means possible including revolution. I don't think Jefferson was referring to the writing of harsh letters and picketing."

Unfortunately, I am sad to say that he does represent the will of about half of the people- the no load, loser, mindless, appeasing, spineless, excuse making, cry baby half that couldn't care less about the origins that made this country great.

Not the angry, God fearing, gun toting, name calling, patriot half

Nope, but I DO regret not putting you on ignore long ago. I have now corrected that error in judgement! and it feels good! Unfortunately 3rd party candidates are just a drain on the other 2 and result in the worst choice getting the pick.

Third party candidates have never resulted in anything but heartache in this country. They have a 100% fail rate at the national level and worse have generally caused a worse candidate to actually win in almost every instance.

Seems like the red and blue candidates are causing a lot of heartache on their own.

WHAT third party candidate has ever caused heartache?


Casey

They are causeing more heartache than they are worth--that's fer' sure.........


Casey

...In many cases, because not enough people had the courage to vote for them, but 'satisfied' themselves with the lesser of evils. A sad result accrues, when men compromise with the devil..It is better to do what you know is right in your heart , as GOD gives you the vision to see that right, than to buy into a political parties line, they'll manipulate you every time if they believe it will profit thier grasp on power and control. There's a sucker born every minute. Folks who compromise with the devil are assuredly among the greatest of suckers!

I can't get this vision out of my head of Bush sitting in a leather chair feet up, with a tumbler in one hand and stogy in the other, watching FOX news with a grin on his face.

Henry Ross Perot gave us the Clintons.....

Thought for all who voted for a third-party candidate:

Faced with a choice between A and Z, y'all voted for Y � feel better now? Satisfied that y'all had nothing to do with the result?

I kinda' thought that was coming......

The Neo-Con Bush The First gave us Bill Clinton.

Tell me, how bad was the economy during Clinton's reign?.....or the national debt?....or deficit spending?

Casey

If A and Z are at opposite ends of the spectrum....we essentially had a choice between L and M--if you limit yourself to only two choices that is........which most people do.......


Casey

As much as it pains me to admit, TR's Bull Moose Party splitting the Republican party in 1912 gave us Woodrow Wilson and as a result a disastrous foreign policy, the great depression and 20 years of Democrats including the new deal. Arguably it set the stage for the President and the polices we are facing today.

Got to agree with GeoW,.... Ross Pee Rot gave us the Klintons...

I think the big problem is that none of the 3rd party candidates have been carismatic enough. It would be quite interesting to see the ensuing shake up if we saw a 3rd partier that was super popular.

A: Pathetic attempt to side-step the question

B: The election limits the practical "menu" to only two who have any chance at all of being elected. There's never (yet) any chance that a third-party or write-in candidate will prevail. �'est la vie. �'est la politique. �'est la r�alit�.

What 20 years? Wilson (D) went from 1912-1920, Harding (R) from 1920-22, Coolidge (R) 1922-28, Hoover (R) 1928-1932. The problem was the ideas promulgated by the Progressives, including Teddy Roosevelt, like the income tax, Federal Reserve, and popular election of Senators came about under TR and were pushed by Taft, and signed by Wilson, or ratified while he was President. FDR took over in 1932 and expanded on the "progressive" programs instituted by his Republican predecesser Hoover.

BTW, for all concerned, Ron Paul did not run as a third party candidate, he ran as a Republican.

True enough and I guess I got all my typing out on the "should I join the military post" What I should have said is more what you said, that the policies that Wilson adopted and pushed forth had an affect that went on and set the stage for the expansion of government for the next 20 years. You can certainly not say that Wilson followed anywhere close to a TR foreign policy/

I certainly do not believe TR would have pushed for those programs, income tax, managed money etc to have evolved to be what they are today. I also believe that it is a viable example of where a third party candidate led to a situation where he hurt what I believe was can easily be described as great heartache.

Ahh, from tiny acorns do mighty oaks grow. I look at the progressive ideas and early programs of TR as planting the seeds of our destruction. While I agree that TR personally was a good man, his pursuit of things such as the FDA and other progressive ideas have led us to where we are today.

Bullcrap. Clinton only won by 5% with Ross Perot taking nearly 19%. Clinton doesn't win without Perot not only splitting the Republican/Independent vote but stirring up the economic focus that summer. The 1991 recession was over before the election and one of the shallowest recessions in history.

Clinton in 1992
Wilson in 1912
And Al Franken doesn't win in Minnesota in 2008 without that idiot Barkley running third party and taking nearly all of the independent vote.

Imagine a race between Obama and Paul.

Obama was a completely empty suit, and the only reason he won was that McCain was an emptier suit. Paul would have put him away. (You'd have voted for Paul, right?) And of course there'd be no trillion-dollar bailout, and more than likely the Federal Reserve would be on the way out.

And no: I had nothing to do with the result.

I can't imagine why I would.

How would Ron Paul handle the problems that exist with our economy? I don't believe that he has any special insight or experience with corporate finance, tax policy, or national economic affairs. I don't believe that he had much to say about the economy during the campaign. So what economic experts is he listening to that no one else is? Although he seems to have an opinion on just about every topic that exists, his website reads more like a manifesto. Maybe that's why he isn't taken too seriously by most people.

Let's say for schits and giggles that instead of Obama, Ron's the president. How would he get anything accomplished? He isn't even a blip on the radar screen for Democrats and most of his own party (rightly or wrongly) think he's a tinfoil hat lunatic.

He's going to have a Democrat majority congress and about all he could do is veto anything they give him...resulting in plenty of watered down crappy legislation that ends up getting passed to over-ride him. So exactly, what would having Pres. Paul do for all of us?

If he has all the answers, then why doesn't he run for Gov of Texas...or for a higher profile job like Senator? No offense to the folks of Texas, but if he couldn't get elected in his home state, what makes him think that that he would have a chance at the national level?

No doubt in my mind Pee-rot ran to cause Bush's loss. IMHO It was a personal vendetta he has against the Bush's. Can I prove this? No, but believe it is truth.

You must not have been listening. It was almost all he talked about, because--being an Austrian economist--he knew this was coming, while everybody else was concentrating on the other candidates' positions on global warming and green energy and abortion and gay marriage.


von Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Hazlitt, and the others. However, he is far more of an economic expert than anyone in the Obama administration, especially Ben Bernanke or Timothy Geithner.


Paul's objective was not to help the government get more accomplished: it was to tear huge bloody strips out of the government. He could have done much of that simply by vetoing legislation (most significantly including funding legislation), canceling executive orders, and pardoning tens of thousands of wrongfully imprisoned people.

And of course Baby Bush has made the office of the President so incredibly extra-Constitutionally powerful that he could undoubtedly have used it to rip even more guts out of the government.


Unlike McCain and Obama and Clinton, Paul wasn't interested in promising to do more for people. I always thought that was his best feature.


Couldn't get elected? What do you mean? He's been elected ten times.

OH...Barack....you disappoint me...to think Paul could have been elected...if you voted for "none of the above" you gave us Obama.....no getting around that.

I don't know why I am even bothering to respond because the Ron Paul that I saw during the campaign provided little more than comic relief. He had the microphone during a national debate and said absolutely nothing of value.

He must be the most misunderstood man in history.

You and I must have been watching different elections. Maybe it was the Austrian election you were focused on because I don't recall anyone spending much time discussing global warming, green energy, abortion, or gay marriage.

You appear to be under the impression that Paul was running for dictator rather than president. How exactly would he "tear huge bloody strips out of the government"? Barak, our system of politics is not a zero-sum-game, if you don't get your way, you can't take your ball and go home. Like it or not, our government is a system that was designed for compromise. How would Ron Paul fit into a system like that? Where would the legislation be coming from to put these changes into effect?

Just because he gets to sit in the big chair doesn't mean he runs the show. I ask again, where does his politicial support come from? If he can't get Republican support for his ideas now, why would they support him as president? Yeah, he can veto all he wants but eventually the majority Dems in congress will modify their legislation just enough to override that veto. There goes the bloody strips.

Maybe you missed my final point. I understand that his "comfort zone" is the House where he has been elected numerous times by what, 20,000 voters or so? My point was, if his ideas are so spot-on then why doesn't he seek out a more reasonable higher office than President so he can put his plans into motion? Why not gov or senator? Doesn't he have any interest at all in moving his ideas out of the theoretical? It seems like such a waste to mankind to keep a guy like him bottled up.

There's apparently no accounting for taste.


First, of course, there are executive orders, vetos, pardons, and the rank of Commander-in-Chief. However, in a world where Paul had been elected President, there would also be a significant amount of public backlash against rebellious politicians in both parties.


Funding bills are frequently fairly contentious. Requiring every funding bill to override a veto will wind up in at least some of them being significantly delayed, or even failing to pass. Government agencies without funding can either die abruptly, ignominiously, and destructively, or legislation to wind them up gracefully can be passed.


Once more: in a world where Paul had been elected President, he would have a fair amount of political support.


I didn't miss it. I just didn't address it, because it wasn't (or at least shouldn't have been) addressed to me. You need to ask Dr. Paul those questions. What I know is that he was running for President rather than governor, not why he was.

Don't let the door hit you in the azz.

That thought makes me smile too.

...Heck Ron Paul would have made us a far better president than Obama! At least he's a man who respects our constitution and bill of rights! I suppose that's why he's often characterized as a fellow with a tin foil hat..I do agree Ron Paul has been warning of this economic collapse for a good while now, and has spelled out common sense monetary changes to get our country back on a course of fiscal responsibility.