Looks like Romney is going to be the Republican's choice

[Sub-Husker]

Dodd-Frank wasn't a token effort - or, more fairly, it wouldn't be if the Republicans in the House & Senate would allow it to be funded.

 

But it IS a token effort... and Obama had not used the power uf the presidency to push for a stronger bill.

 

Obama did use the power of his office to push for his Health Care Reform UNTIL the last vestage of a government option was stripped out.

[Sub-Husker]

I guess if you consider all combat troops out a token effort . . .

 

That is a disengenuous response Carlfense, and you know it.

 

Before we can determine if it is a token effort, other questions need to be evaluated... such as;

- Was the role of the troops just relabeled?

- Were they replaced by civilian conrractors?

- Were they restationed to nearby countries, ready to fill a similar role there?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Ron Paul published those racial remarks 20...20 years ago. Every candidate has something they're to be ashamed of, but Paul's problems are 10-20 years old where as Romney's, Santorum's, Gingrich's...they are all more recent.

 

I don't know about you, but when I look at trying to predict future behavior...I look at what has happened more recently. If you don't view it that way then that's your prerogative.

[knapplc]

I don't think people supporting Ron Paul really look that deeply into his politics. He's toned down his rhetoric lately, but yes, he did publish newsletters with strong racial biases. Twenty years ago doesn't excuse the fact that he did it. He still did it. Twenty years ago he wasn't running for the presidency. Twenty years ago he was a 56-year-old man with the wisdom to know better than to publish something like that. A 56-year-old man should be smart enough not to let a newsletter go out in his name that states that order was restored in the L.A. riots following the Rodney King verdict "only after the welfare checks were handed out." That is an unconscionable statement from a grown man.

 

But we don't have to go back twenty years. Let's go back to 2008 when Ron Paul gave the keynote address to the John Birch Society's 50th anniversary dinner. That was four years ago. This isn't "the distant past," this is the last election cycle. He's not giving up these racist beliefs, he's just putting them aside while it's politically convenient.

 

Paul has some good ideas. And they make a lot of sense. But so did Mussolini. It's not enough to make the trains run on time, and it's not OK to accept radicalism for the few benefits a presidential candidate may offer.

[carlfense]

I guess if you consider all combat troops out a token effort . . .

 

That is a disengenuous response Carlfense, and you know it.

 

Before we can determine if it is a token effort, other questions need to be evaluated... such as;

- Was the role of the troops just relabeled?

- Were they replaced by civilian conrractors?

- Were they restationed to nearby countries, ready to fill a similar role there?

Wait . . . you call my response disingenuous and then you respond with that? I wonder if the pot is even aware of the kettles existence.

[Sub-Husker]

I guess if you consider all combat troops out a token effort . . .

 

That is a disengenuous response Carlfense, and you know it.

 

Before we can determine if it is a token effort, other questions need to be evaluated... such as;

- Was the role of the troops just relabeled?

- Were they replaced by civilian conrractors?

- Were they restationed to nearby countries, ready to fill a similar role there?

 

Wait . . . you call my response disingenuous and then you respond with that? I wonder if the pot is even aware of the kettles existence.

 

Why do you find the scenarios I laid out to be disengenuous?

 

If any combination of the three were the case, then I would be correct in calling it a token effort.

[carlfense]

I guess if you consider all combat troops out a token effort . . .

 

That is a disengenuous response Carlfense, and you know it.

 

Before we can determine if it is a token effort, other questions need to be evaluated... such as;

- Was the role of the troops just relabeled?

- Were they replaced by civilian conrractors?

- Were they restationed to nearby countries, ready to fill a similar role there?

 

Wait . . . you call my response disingenuous and then you respond with that? I wonder if the pot is even aware of the kettles existence.

 

Why do you find the scenarios I laid out to be disengenuous?

 

If any combination of the three were the case, then I would be correct in calling it a token effort.

But you are just throwing out hypotheticals and acting like that proves that it was a token effort. If this is the case . . . show it . . . rather than just saying "but what if this is what they did?" That's how it's disingenuous.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I don't think people supporting Ron Paul really look that deeply into his politics. He's toned down his rhetoric lately, but yes, he did publish newsletters with strong racial biases. Twenty years ago doesn't excuse the fact that he did it. He still did it. Twenty years ago he wasn't running for the presidency. Twenty years ago he was a 56-year-old man with the wisdom to know better than to publish something like that. A 56-year-old man should be smart enough not to let a newsletter go out in his name that states that order was restored in the L.A. riots following the Rodney King verdict "only after the welfare checks were handed out." That is an unconscionable statement from a grown man.

 

But we don't have to go back twenty years. Let's go back to 2008 when Ron Paul gave the keynote address to the John Birch Society's 50th anniversary dinner. That was four years ago. This isn't "the distant past," this is the last election cycle. He's not giving up these racist beliefs, he's just putting them aside while it's politically convenient.

 

Paul has some good ideas. And they make a lot of sense. But so did Mussolini. It's not enough to make the trains run on time, and it's not OK to accept radicalism for the few benefits a presidential candidate may offer.

 

Fair enough. By this logic...no candidate is good?

[knapplc]

"No candidate is good" is kind of a truism. I think it's safer to say that some candidates are less bad than others.

 

To put it in a medical perspective, pretty much every candidate has a serious case of the flu. Some go beyond that to emphysema or COPD, while some are terminal cancer patients.

 

Then you have guys like Jimmy McMillan who, in this analogy, are about 1/8th of a second from hitting the wood chipper at a dead sprint.