I am a Sergeant in the U.S. Army. I support Ron Paul and I support his foreign policy. I am sure you would not dare call me a Paultard to my face.[/quote]
I never used the term “Paultard” but it is a good one I have to admit. I use the term “Paulies.” As for Paul’s foreign policy he has none. It’s put up the walls turn out the lights and close your eyes. That is until the enemy is at your door step stronger than ever. Then what do we do Dr. Paul? Um…no answer. And that’s part of what makes Paul dangerous. He is the master of simple answers to complicated problems. And guys like you eat that up. It’s a shame really.
Well, now I have been called a lot of things on T Nation but never a flabby couch potato. I still train 5 days a week and can probably do some things that guys 20 years younger would have a hard time with. I’m sure as heck not saying I’m in as good a shape as you are, but then again I don’t know the kind of shape you’re in so I’ll let that one lie there.
I never called you that either. Do you have me confused with someone else?
Not when it comes to Ron Paul you don’t.
Nonsense my friend, isolationism never works read about Chamberlain and how that worked out for him.
A lot of people keep throwing Christie in the mix. While I think he would be a good choice for a VP nomination, that alone won’t guarantee NJ. As I’ve said before he is meeting a lot of resistance in NJ (particularly from the unions) and being blamed for actually doing the right thing (cutting waste). People need to realize that, at least from what I’ve seen, Christie is more popular in the rest of the country than he is at home and his nomination doesn’t guarantee NJ. There are still a lot of Obama supporters here. Granted there are also a lot of people who voted for him the first time around and are pissed but in a highly liberal state like NJ seeing Christie on the ticket will not guarantee winning NJ.
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
A lot of people keep throwing Christie in the mix. While I think he would be a good choice for a VP nomination, that alone won’t guarantee NJ. As I’ve said before he is meeting a lot of resistance in NJ (particularly from the unions) and being blamed for actually doing the right thing (cutting waste). People need to realize that, at least from what I’ve seen, Christie is more popular in the rest of the country than he is at home and his nomination doesn’t guarantee NJ. There are still a lot of Obama supporters here. Granted there are also a lot of people who voted for him the first time around and are pissed but in a highly liberal state like NJ seeing Christie on the ticket will not guarantee winning NJ.[/quote]
That is an excellent point that you bring to the discussion. He is viewed in a positive light in most areas of the country however so that probably more than makes up for his potential lack of ability to bring NJ if he gets the nod.
I don’t think I was talking down to you. Sorry you got that impression.
You just said he is no better than Obama. That tells me that you don’t know what you’re talking about regarding Rick Perry. He is against higher taxes that right there separates him from Obama. No one is really another Obama. Hillary Clinton isn’t even another Obama. The Clintons have always been pragmatists. Obama is an idealouge. When there was a chance to do something about the economy what did he do? He pushed national health care down our throats. He showed his true colors as he does every time he opens his mouth and scares small business. He’s by far the worst person that could have been elected from either party. So don’t say Perry is another Obama because there is no other Obama.
Well, I agree we do need this. But this time around the change you are talking about is NOT going to happen. We either take one step away from our demise by electing a republican, or we take one or two more steps toward our demise by reelecting Obama. The choice is clear.
I live in a world that is real, where do you live? Do you live in a world where you think someone like Ron Paul is going to get elected President? Because if you do, you are the real fool my friend. There will either be a republican or a democrat elected to the Presidency in 2012. It will either be Obama, Romney, Perry, Bachman or another yet unannounced republican like Christie. But rest assured Ron Paul will NEVER become President. So if you decide to send him your money or hop on a bus to troll for him keep in mind that you are wasting your time and money. And while you are certainly not a kid you will be making the same mistakes that some 20 something males are making (that’s right young females don’t like Paul). And somehow it’s just a little bit more forgivable coming from someone who is 22 than from someone like you who is older and should know better.
Change happens in steps gradually. And those who think that a white knight is going to become President (Whether it’s Paul or someone else) are drinking the koolaide usually reserved for people who are just too young and know no better.
[/quote]
I do not want some one like ron paul, not as president, maybe treas sec. or something like that.
I do live in the real world. But disagree in the best solution.
When I say he is no better it is because he speaks like a moderate, but his record tells a different story. HE DOES RAISE TAXES, in fact with the highway toll system he was trying to maintain tax and sell the roads to a monopoly, not competing companies, that people would also have to pay tolls on. But why get bogged down with those details, who cares what he really did, we’ll just look at what his supporters say.
I could get behind Christie or Paul Ryan. I would like to hear obama debate paul ryan on economics. Match him with someone like allen west as VP and that would be good for the country, don’t know how electable.
…in fact with the highway toll system he was trying to maintain tax and sell the roads to a monopoly, not competing companies, that people would also have to pay tolls on. But why get bogged down with those details, who cares what he really did, we’ll just look at what his supporters say.
[/quote]
Sell the roads? Nope.
Sell the right to build the roads and then charge tolls to recoup the costs? Yep.
C’mon man, if tax money didn’t build the roads and private enterprise did why wouldn’t it be fair for the company to charge tolls to its customers?
What little reading I did on the subject led me to those conclusions. If I’m wrong correct me. The link was somewhere up yonder ^ in the thread.
I am not a Perry supporter but AM an advocate for Truth.[/quote]
ok you are right about new construction, but read the article above.
this where I first read about the roads,
Don’t privately-run toll roads sound more libertarian than government roads?
So what’s up? Why am I opposed to toll roads?
If we were talking about an open system where private companies compete with each other to build roads, buying their own right-of-way, taking the risks and earning the profits, I’d be a supporter.
But that’s absolutely not what we’re talking about. In almost every case, “toll roads” are a mechanism where government remains in charge, but manages to take more of your money. It’s a slick sales job to fool people.
In Texas, the plan was for a single private monopoly company to get the concession to build and maintain roads. No competition allowed. Even the government couldn’t compete. That meant that the government would intentionally allow the traditional non-toll roads to decay, and they would lower the non-toll speed limits, in order to fulfill their agreement. But don’t think for a minute they would lower the gas taxes and other taxes used for those roads. You’d be paying just as much tax, and the government would intentionally be delivering less.
You might end up having to drive on the toll road, where the owning company (thanks to its government-guaranteed monopoly) could charge you however much it wanted.
I’m all for corporate profits – but not when it’s a government-guaranteed monopoly.
It was also very questionable how much the private company was “taking the risks.” If things didn’t work out, it was very likely that the government would bail out the private company with tax dollars, and then take over the road. (While continuing to levy both taxes and tolls.)
I don’t want our state and federal governments to have more revenue and more debt. I want them to have less of both. I also don’t want them picking out their cronies’ companies to be the big beneficiaries of monopoly concessions. I hate it when politicians dictate winners and losers.
I don’t want the government to increase the financial burden on citizens, in order to create an illusion of privatization. Tolled highways can cost twice as much to build per added lane-mile as non-tolled roads, and ten times more than ground-level thoroughfares.
In the northeast, many people have listened to politicians talk about how tolls were only going to be charged until the road was paid for, and then the tolls would be removed. Yet somehow, the road never quite got paid for, or they changed the rules, and the tolls remained indefinitely.
One more thing: In Texas, Rick Perry planned to use eminent domain to seize huge amounts of private land for the toll road network. I strongly disagree with eminent domain seizures.
Unfortunately, the government almost completely controls the building and maintenance of roads in America. And it’s really hard, if not impossible, to privatize it “a little bit.” That just ends up making it more complicated, corrupt, and expensive.
Maybe someday, someone will come up with a toll road plan that really makes sense from a Libertarian point of view. Rick Perry absolutely failed to do that in Texas
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I could get behind Christie or Paul Ryan. I would like to hear obama debate paul ryan on economics. Match him with someone like allen west as VP and that would be good for the country, don’t know how electable.
[/quote]
I actually think that Christie would do well. The big complaint about him image wise is his weight. But in a country where almost 70% of the populace is over weight he just might have an “every man” appeal. That along with his toughness in standing up to the unions in NJ could make him a winner. At the very least he’d be my number one pick for the VP slot.
I am a Sergeant in the U.S. Army. I support Ron Paul and I support his foreign policy. I am sure you would not dare call me a Paultard to my face.
No, you would give me the same parroted line I hear 100 times a day, “Thank you for your service”. When I hear some flabby couch potato like you say that to me it makes me sick. Yes, I serve our country, but our wars do not.
I do my best to keep my men alive while we carry out this sick policy of sticking our noses in other peoples business. When was the last time you had a friend die in your arms or look for the leg that was just blown off of the man next to you? When was the last time you walked past dead children that were killed by U.S. weapons? I’m glad you can sleep at night, because many times I cannot. I have children myself you self righteous SOB. If someone killed my children you can bet I would do everything in my power to seek revenge.
You dare call me rabid and blind? I know what I am talking about. Why don’t you grab a gun and head to Iran if you want to fight them so much. Ron Paul is right. They are no threat to us. We need to mind our own business. They hate us not because we are rich and free, they hate us because we are in their countries.
It is people like you that are the biggest threat to this country, not Iran.BY SgtLewis on 08/16/2011 at 11:06
Couldn’t have said it better myself Zeb.[/quote]
That’s some pretty crazy shit there pal. Want to hear a joke?
Q: How many Paultards does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. Lightbulbs are unconstitutional. It’s a FACT!
Eminent domain issues tend to piss me off quite a bit too. However, NO government built road EVER appears without the use of it either.
Also, the article said landowners didn’t have to sell but rather had the option of taking an equity share in the highway. WHEN did government ever allow that free enterprise type of idea?
The rest of your post I can’t necessarily disagree with but there were some very appealing aspects of the project to me IN PRINCIPLE. 'Course I’m biased. I can’t see the government doing ANYTHING (positive) better than the private sector.
[/quote]
Yeah I understand the private vs public issue,But the eminent domain strikes a personal note. my father wouldn’t sell his family farm back before world war II, then while he was serving they convinced his mother, who had Alzheimer to sell for much under the market value with no moving compensation or anything else.
There is something about Perry, throws up a red flag for me. My fathers family had a reunion at our small farm about a month ago. Most of them are from Connecticut and a small group from Texas. So there are some pretty interesting political discussions. The ones from Texas despise Perry, say Texas is doing good in-spite of him. That he is a two faced thug and nothing more.
On a side note I had an opportunity to piss of the ones from Connecticut too. There were bluebirds eating our blueberries in the blueberry bushes so I got my pellet gun out for my 5 yr old daughter to shoot. They got all worked up about how she might get hurt and it was bad to teach her. She simply pumped and shot one of the birds, then got a basket picked some berries and brought them back to share. Didn’t even care that they got offended.
I wouldn’t worry too much about Christie’s weight. He could always run an add stating obama is a scrawny little bean pole and look how good he was for the country.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I’ve been following and researching Rick Perry for a while now, and like any candidate I suppose, people have some polarized opinions of him. While the rest of us politically conservative types, see something exceptional in Rick Perry & Texas when compared to our own states politicians & status, many Texans are not that crazy about him. So, to echo Mufasa’s question…Why is that, exactly?
The unsubstantiated opinions out there, positive and negative, are endless.
But I recently came across the write-up in the link below that appears to be fairly objective and factual and explained a lot to me. Is Rick Perry lily white? Hardly. But I still think he’s the best option I’ve seen so far.
Using just the FACTS (references go a long way) I’d be interested in knowing what others think; what advantages and disadvantages are there regarding Rick Perry POTUS.[/quote]
Just google his voting and spending record for facts.
Perry is charming people with the Texas good ol’ cowboy persona that works wonders on women, strangers and evidently voters outside Texas who don’t know what a shitty leader he is.
If actions speak louder than words, and they do, Perry is a big spending, soft on illegal immigration donkey in elephant clothing.
For the record, he is slightly exaggerating his drawl too. Don’t be sucked in by his charm or fantastic hair.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
what advantages and disadvantages are there regarding Rick Perry POTUS.[/quote]
Advantages: Fifth generation West Texan, Christian, track record of fiscal conservativism, pro-death penalty(but commuted a convicted murderer’s death sentence)
Disadvantages: Former Democrat, flip flopped on gay marriage recently, wrote a nutty liberatarian book(Fed Up!), signed HRC 50 and talks about seceding from the Union, HPC vaccine executive order, Trans Texas Corridor/Cintra corruption
That’s all I can come up with. Maybe someone else could add something. To be honest the libertarian stuff leaves me with a deep and abiding concern about Perry’s judgement and character.[/quote]
I’m not a Perry fan but in my opinion you should put his desire to secede in the Advantage column. Many born and raised Texans hold this sentiment. We would be the new Kuwait and fuck everyone else.
On a national level, this psychology would have Perry recapturing the “rugged individualist” ideal the United States has not known in generations. Unfortunately, thanks to the Taliban, whoever is elected will still have to quell the fire in the middle east so this quality may be lost already, totally nullifying it. Plus the trans-Texas corridor kind of puts a kink in that too, so never mind. Still just a big spending donkey posing as a republican.
…in fact with the highway toll system he was trying to maintain tax and sell the roads to a monopoly, not competing companies, that people would also have to pay tolls on. But why get bogged down with those details, who cares what he really did, we’ll just look at what his supporters say.
[/quote]
Sell the roads? Nope.
Sell the right to build the roads and then charge tolls to recoup the costs? Yep.
C’mon man, if tax money didn’t build the roads and private enterprise did why wouldn’t it be fair for the company to charge tolls to its customers?
What little reading I did on the subject led me to those conclusions. If I’m wrong correct me. The link was somewhere up yonder ^ in the thread.
I am not a Perry supporter but AM an advocate for Truth.[/quote]
ok you are right about new construction, but read the article above.
this where I first read about the roads,
Don’t privately-run toll roads sound more libertarian than government roads?
So what’s up? Why am I opposed to toll roads?
If we were talking about an open system where private companies compete with each other to build roads, buying their own right-of-way, taking the risks and earning the profits, I’d be a supporter.
But that’s absolutely not what we’re talking about. In almost every case, “toll roads” are a mechanism where government remains in charge, but manages to take more of your money. It’s a slick sales job to fool people.
In Texas, the plan was for a single private monopoly company to get the concession to build and maintain roads. No competition allowed. Even the government couldn’t compete. That meant that the government would intentionally allow the traditional non-toll roads to decay, and they would lower the non-toll speed limits, in order to fulfill their agreement. But don’t think for a minute they would lower the gas taxes and other taxes used for those roads. You’d be paying just as much tax, and the government would intentionally be delivering less.
You might end up having to drive on the toll road, where the owning company (thanks to its government-guaranteed monopoly) could charge you however much it wanted.
I’m all for corporate profits – but not when it’s a government-guaranteed monopoly.
It was also very questionable how much the private company was “taking the risks.” If things didn’t work out, it was very likely that the government would bail out the private company with tax dollars, and then take over the road. (While continuing to levy both taxes and tolls.)
I don’t want our state and federal governments to have more revenue and more debt. I want them to have less of both. I also don’t want them picking out their cronies’ companies to be the big beneficiaries of monopoly concessions. I hate it when politicians dictate winners and losers.
I don’t want the government to increase the financial burden on citizens, in order to create an illusion of privatization. Tolled highways can cost twice as much to build per added lane-mile as non-tolled roads, and ten times more than ground-level thoroughfares.
In the northeast, many people have listened to politicians talk about how tolls were only going to be charged until the road was paid for, and then the tolls would be removed. Yet somehow, the road never quite got paid for, or they changed the rules, and the tolls remained indefinitely.
One more thing: In Texas, Rick Perry planned to use eminent domain to seize huge amounts of private land for the toll road network. I strongly disagree with eminent domain seizures.
Unfortunately, the government almost completely controls the building and maintenance of roads in America. And it’s really hard, if not impossible, to privatize it “a little bit.” That just ends up making it more complicated, corrupt, and expensive.
Maybe someday, someone will come up with a toll road plan that really makes sense from a Libertarian point of view. Rick Perry absolutely failed to do that in Texas
[/quote]
I tried to pay careful attention to this matter at the time, I think eminent domain has been used lately in horrible ways - like condemning homes that did not have attached garages so that a private company could build apartments and raise property tax revenues (I believe this was in Ohio) - and one argument against the privatized roads is that the company planed to limit access onto the roads. This means existing towns/stores/etc. would lose access to the road. Think about that, do you want a company deciding that the road out to your house should be disconnected from the main road? Your town cut-off from the highway? Interstates and highways are often the life blood economically for towns and cities across the country. There is at least some accountability in government; if a private company chooses to do this, you can what, stop driving on their roads?
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Is it just me or are other people noticing that the people arguing against Perry are either living in Texas, from Texas, or have family there?[/quote]
I’ve noticed this too, which makes me very wary of him.
