Republican Candidates
- Thread starter stdreb27
- Start date
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
on a side note, why when I post sometimes it is edited ---- and other times ****. I typed the same word and it is simular to nails only twists in so you don't think I'm cussing.
**** Are where one of us Mods went in and deleted something.
(We try to Mod out, for instance, profanity spelled with #%#$ symbols)
on a side note, why when I post sometimes it is edited ---- and other times ****. I typed the same word and it is simular to nails only twists in so you don't think I'm cussing.
**** Are where one of us Mods went in and deleted something.
(We try to Mod out, for instance, profanity spelled with #%#$ symbols)
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
Great, who do I want, the "Republican maverick" or the flip flopping business man romney. To bad ron paul is anti-war, and bit of a conspiracy theorist.
Ya... guess I'll throw my hat in the ring for Romney.... Grrrr....
Great, who do I want, the "Republican maverick" or the flip flopping business man romney. To bad ron paul is anti-war, and bit of a conspiracy theorist.
Ya... guess I'll throw my hat in the ring for Romney.... Grrrr....
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
I really like Ron Paul's voting record but, yeah, he's a few fries short of a happy meal.
What is sad is that he really is a nice sincere guy. and he honestly believes what he is saying.
I'm just ticked, if either one of those guys gets elected, we'll have 4 years then have to watch them run agian. Loose to a lib. Or have 8 years of some hybrid politician. I'd almost want to not get our quazi-whatever into office and have a true conservative run (if one appears) in 4 years. It is a dilema in my mind.
I really like Ron Paul's voting record but, yeah, he's a few fries short of a happy meal.
What is sad is that he really is a nice sincere guy. and he honestly believes what he is saying.
I'm just ticked, if either one of those guys gets elected, we'll have 4 years then have to watch them run agian. Loose to a lib. Or have 8 years of some hybrid politician. I'd almost want to not get our quazi-whatever into office and have a true conservative run (if one appears) in 4 years. It is a dilema in my mind.
stdreb27
Active Member
Although, right now, I'd rather have a fiscally conservative guy, vs, whatever mccain is. And what is not sitting well in my craw, is if Romney is a practicing moron, (which is a socially conservative minus the historical poligamy) why would be have been pro-baby killing? There are cicles of logic to chance following that train of though.
jerthunter
Active Member
Well I just came in to check on this thread since I predicted awhile back that the Huckabee guy wouldn't win any primaries so I thought I'd come in and say "I told you so..." I suppose he still has a chance with all the primaries coming up to win one but I still like to point out my prediction.
On another note, stdreb27, I don't know if you did it on purpose but I believe Mitt is a practicing Mormon and not what you typed...
On another note, stdreb27, I don't know if you did it on purpose but I believe Mitt is a practicing Mormon and not what you typed...
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well I just came in to check on this thread since I predicted awhile back that the Huckabee guy wouldn't win any primaries so I thought I'd come in and say "I told you so..." I suppose he still has a chance with all the primaries coming up to win one but I still like to point out my prediction.
On another note, stdreb27, I don't know if you did it on purpose but I believe Mitt is a practicing Mormon and not what you typed...
It was more of an "If he is, then why is he doing?" train of thought.
Well I just came in to check on this thread since I predicted awhile back that the Huckabee guy wouldn't win any primaries so I thought I'd come in and say "I told you so..." I suppose he still has a chance with all the primaries coming up to win one but I still like to point out my prediction.
On another note, stdreb27, I don't know if you did it on purpose but I believe Mitt is a practicing Mormon and not what you typed...
It was more of an "If he is, then why is he doing?" train of thought.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well I just came in to check on this thread since I predicted awhile back that the Huckabee guy wouldn't win any primaries so I thought I'd come in and say "I told you so..." I suppose he still has a chance with all the primaries coming up to win one but I still like to point out my prediction.
On another note, stdreb27, I don't know if you did it on purpose but I believe Mitt is a practicing Mormon and not what you typed...
It was more of an "If he is, then why is he doing?" train of thought.
Well I just came in to check on this thread since I predicted awhile back that the Huckabee guy wouldn't win any primaries so I thought I'd come in and say "I told you so..." I suppose he still has a chance with all the primaries coming up to win one but I still like to point out my prediction.
On another note, stdreb27, I don't know if you did it on purpose but I believe Mitt is a practicing Mormon and not what you typed...
It was more of an "If he is, then why is he doing?" train of thought.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well I just came in to check on this thread since I predicted awhile back that the Huckabee guy wouldn't win any primaries so I thought I'd come in and say "I told you so..." I suppose he still has a chance with all the primaries coming up to win one but I still like to point out my prediction.
On another note, stdreb27, I don't know if you did it on purpose but I believe Mitt is a practicing Mormon and not what you typed...
It was more of an "If he is, then why is he doing?" train of thought.
Well I just came in to check on this thread since I predicted awhile back that the Huckabee guy wouldn't win any primaries so I thought I'd come in and say "I told you so..." I suppose he still has a chance with all the primaries coming up to win one but I still like to point out my prediction.
On another note, stdreb27, I don't know if you did it on purpose but I believe Mitt is a practicing Mormon and not what you typed...
It was more of an "If he is, then why is he doing?" train of thought.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
You know what is really screwed up. I'm fresh out of college, I have my first "real" job. Just starting out, worked my way through school and I worked 4 months to pay taxes. 33% of medicare, income, and social security. Not counting the 8.25% for everything I buy. Four *** months!
Good god don't go looking at electric, phone, cable, gas and cell phone bill taxes, you'll open a vein.
My phone bill is like 48% taxes and "fees".
You know what is really screwed up. I'm fresh out of college, I have my first "real" job. Just starting out, worked my way through school and I worked 4 months to pay taxes. 33% of medicare, income, and social security. Not counting the 8.25% for everything I buy. Four *** months!
Good god don't go looking at electric, phone, cable, gas and cell phone bill taxes, you'll open a vein.
My phone bill is like 48% taxes and "fees".
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I believe in country, but not the current admin... there is a clear difference..
Did you beleive in the past Clinton administration when he ordererd the bombing of El Shifa? The medicine factory? How many Sudan poeple died becasue they could no longer be supplied with medicine? That too was based on 'faulty intel"...but I guess that is okay since it was a Clinton goof.
Did we follow your "rules of war" with that action?
Care to comment?
In launching Tomahawk missiles to destroy the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Co. factory in Khartoum, the Clinton Administration claimed it had destroyed a "chemical weapons-related" facility that was being used for the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials averred that the evidence was "compelling" and "irrefutable." It was neither, as unfolding events showed:
British engineer Tom Carnaffin, who served as technical manager of the plant from 1992 to 1996, was quoted in the New York Times and other publications as saying, "I have intimate knowledge of that factory and it just does not lend itself to the manufacture of chemical weapons."
Germany's ambassador to Sudan, Werner Daum, was quoted in the August 31st issue of Der Spiegel as saying that the factory "mainly produces antibiotics, medicaments against diarrhoea and malaria, preparations for transfusions, and veterinary products."
Sudanese rescue workers and firemen could be seen on television news in the midst of the factory rubble without protective suits, together with barefoot, lightly clad onlookers, none of whom, apparently, suffered any ill effects from the supposed deadly chemicals.
Under increasing pressure to produce evidence of chemical weapons production, Clinton officials claimed that a soil sample that had been secretly taken from the Al-Shifa site before the attack showed traces of the chemical compound EMPTA, which has no use except in chemical weapons. However, the New York Times reported that EMPTA can easily be confused in lab tests with FONFOS, an agricultural insecticide common throughout Africa.
Administration officials have yet to produce any "compelling," let alone "irrefutable," evidence that the bombed complex was a "chemical weapons-related" facility. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told a global CNN television audience that "we have physical evidence" but "are not going to release it."
In a press briefing after the missile attack, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Sandy Berger claimed that exiled Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden helped finance the Al-Shifa "chemical weapons plant." Claims of proof for this tie-in have turned out to be as empty as the EMPTA "evidence."
Although bin Laden did live in Sudan during the early 1990s and is reliably reported to still have operational ties to the terror regime in Khartoum, Clinton officials have shown no trail linking either bin Laden or the Sudanese government to Al-Shifa. No evidence has been forthcoming to support claims that the facility was part of Sudan's "military industrial complex." (Even if evidence were produced drawing the bin Laden financial connection to the Al-Shifa plant, what justification would it provide for a military strike against a civilian target?)
As the bin Laden connection foundered, officials leaked another anonymous story: Saddam Hussein had helped set up the supposed VX facility at Al-Shifa. But again, no evidence, and this line had its own problems. If Baghdad was behind the facility, and if this connection provided the rationale for the attacks, then why was the White House attacking bin Laden and simultaneously bending over backwards to avoid confronting Saddam over his chemical and biological weapons facilities in Iraq?
In his televised address to the nation, President Clinton claimed that the Afghan sites had been chosen as targets because "a gathering of key terrorist leaders was to take place there today." "Our target was terror," Mr. Clinton claimed in his August 20th Oval Office address, asserting that "convincing and compelling" intelligence reports indicated bin Laden's network was planning further attacks. The frightful spectre of a global convocation of terrorist kingpins planning imminent destruction for America was a powerful selling point. But it too appears to have been a Clintonian fabrication.
Contd
I believe in country, but not the current admin... there is a clear difference..
Did you beleive in the past Clinton administration when he ordererd the bombing of El Shifa? The medicine factory? How many Sudan poeple died becasue they could no longer be supplied with medicine? That too was based on 'faulty intel"...but I guess that is okay since it was a Clinton goof.
Did we follow your "rules of war" with that action?
Care to comment?
In launching Tomahawk missiles to destroy the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Co. factory in Khartoum, the Clinton Administration claimed it had destroyed a "chemical weapons-related" facility that was being used for the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials averred that the evidence was "compelling" and "irrefutable." It was neither, as unfolding events showed:
British engineer Tom Carnaffin, who served as technical manager of the plant from 1992 to 1996, was quoted in the New York Times and other publications as saying, "I have intimate knowledge of that factory and it just does not lend itself to the manufacture of chemical weapons."
Germany's ambassador to Sudan, Werner Daum, was quoted in the August 31st issue of Der Spiegel as saying that the factory "mainly produces antibiotics, medicaments against diarrhoea and malaria, preparations for transfusions, and veterinary products."
Sudanese rescue workers and firemen could be seen on television news in the midst of the factory rubble without protective suits, together with barefoot, lightly clad onlookers, none of whom, apparently, suffered any ill effects from the supposed deadly chemicals.
Under increasing pressure to produce evidence of chemical weapons production, Clinton officials claimed that a soil sample that had been secretly taken from the Al-Shifa site before the attack showed traces of the chemical compound EMPTA, which has no use except in chemical weapons. However, the New York Times reported that EMPTA can easily be confused in lab tests with FONFOS, an agricultural insecticide common throughout Africa.
Administration officials have yet to produce any "compelling," let alone "irrefutable," evidence that the bombed complex was a "chemical weapons-related" facility. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told a global CNN television audience that "we have physical evidence" but "are not going to release it."
In a press briefing after the missile attack, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Sandy Berger claimed that exiled Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden helped finance the Al-Shifa "chemical weapons plant." Claims of proof for this tie-in have turned out to be as empty as the EMPTA "evidence."
Although bin Laden did live in Sudan during the early 1990s and is reliably reported to still have operational ties to the terror regime in Khartoum, Clinton officials have shown no trail linking either bin Laden or the Sudanese government to Al-Shifa. No evidence has been forthcoming to support claims that the facility was part of Sudan's "military industrial complex." (Even if evidence were produced drawing the bin Laden financial connection to the Al-Shifa plant, what justification would it provide for a military strike against a civilian target?)
As the bin Laden connection foundered, officials leaked another anonymous story: Saddam Hussein had helped set up the supposed VX facility at Al-Shifa. But again, no evidence, and this line had its own problems. If Baghdad was behind the facility, and if this connection provided the rationale for the attacks, then why was the White House attacking bin Laden and simultaneously bending over backwards to avoid confronting Saddam over his chemical and biological weapons facilities in Iraq?
In his televised address to the nation, President Clinton claimed that the Afghan sites had been chosen as targets because "a gathering of key terrorist leaders was to take place there today." "Our target was terror," Mr. Clinton claimed in his August 20th Oval Office address, asserting that "convincing and compelling" intelligence reports indicated bin Laden's network was planning further attacks. The frightful spectre of a global convocation of terrorist kingpins planning imminent destruction for America was a powerful selling point. But it too appears to have been a Clintonian fabrication.
Contd
scubadoo
Active Member
Reports on August 21st suggested that as many as 600 terrorists were in attendance at bin Laden's mountain redoubts. "This is the largest Sunni terrorist training facility in the world," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh Shelton told a Pentagon briefing. In later reports, however, officials acknowledged that the terror summit story had been erroneous; bin Laden and other leaders were probably nowhere near the four camps that were hit by the Tomahawk attack.
On August 21st Sandy Berger offered this positive assessment: "The attacks have significantly disrupted the capability to use these camps as terrorist training facilities." William Cohen also claimed that the strikes "destroyed a number of facilities." But reporters who journeyed to the remote locations described only a few thousands of dollars worth of damage to obstacle courses, barracks, and tents, all relatively easy to replace. A paltry return for the expenditure of an estimated $100 million in cruise missiles.
On August 21st Sandy Berger offered this positive assessment: "The attacks have significantly disrupted the capability to use these camps as terrorist training facilities." William Cohen also claimed that the strikes "destroyed a number of facilities." But reporters who journeyed to the remote locations described only a few thousands of dollars worth of damage to obstacle courses, barracks, and tents, all relatively easy to replace. A paltry return for the expenditure of an estimated $100 million in cruise missiles.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
Good god don't go looking at electric, phone, cable, gas and cell phone bill taxes, you'll open a vein.
My phone bill is like 48% taxes and "fees".
I didn't think about taxes on gas, electricity and cable. I used to sell cell phones. So I know how much goes into that, if you read your fine print it tops out at 22% for your cell phone bill, where I am it is about 15%.
You know what is really messed up about cell phone's. They are required to have GPS devices in the phone to "work as a locator" in case you don't know where you are. They had to have like 90% of the handsets in compliance last year. The thing is, they "efficient" government overlooked the 911 call centers, and I don't believe 40% of call centers have the equipment to locate you on your 911 call. Morons.
Dang I've driven about 25,000 miles this year. I get 30 miles to a gallon in my honda. At 43 cents a gallon in federal and state tax that is 350 more bucks. At least those benifits are tangible, I do have pothole filled roads to drive on. And a 10 mile stretch of freeway that takes 1.5 hours to drive in the morning.
Good god don't go looking at electric, phone, cable, gas and cell phone bill taxes, you'll open a vein.
My phone bill is like 48% taxes and "fees".
I didn't think about taxes on gas, electricity and cable. I used to sell cell phones. So I know how much goes into that, if you read your fine print it tops out at 22% for your cell phone bill, where I am it is about 15%.
You know what is really messed up about cell phone's. They are required to have GPS devices in the phone to "work as a locator" in case you don't know where you are. They had to have like 90% of the handsets in compliance last year. The thing is, they "efficient" government overlooked the 911 call centers, and I don't believe 40% of call centers have the equipment to locate you on your 911 call. Morons.
Dang I've driven about 25,000 miles this year. I get 30 miles to a gallon in my honda. At 43 cents a gallon in federal and state tax that is 350 more bucks. At least those benifits are tangible, I do have pothole filled roads to drive on. And a 10 mile stretch of freeway that takes 1.5 hours to drive in the morning.
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well I just came in to check on this thread since I predicted awhile back that the Huckabee guy wouldn't win any primaries so I thought I'd come in and say "I told you so..." I suppose he still has a chance with all the primaries coming up to win one but I still like to point out my prediction.
On another note, stdreb27, I don't know if you did it on purpose but I believe Mitt is a practicing Mormon and not what you typed...
Huckleberry will prolly win in a southern state or two, but I don't see much past that.
We'll see...but I think he will win a couple more.
Well I just came in to check on this thread since I predicted awhile back that the Huckabee guy wouldn't win any primaries so I thought I'd come in and say "I told you so..." I suppose he still has a chance with all the primaries coming up to win one but I still like to point out my prediction.
On another note, stdreb27, I don't know if you did it on purpose but I believe Mitt is a practicing Mormon and not what you typed...
Huckleberry will prolly win in a southern state or two, but I don't see much past that.
We'll see...but I think he will win a couple more.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Administration officials have yet to produce any "compelling," let alone "irrefutable," evidence that the bombed complex was a "chemical weapons-related" facility. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told a global CNN television audience that "we have physical evidence" but "are not going to release it."
Is this the same Sandy Berger that got caught trying to sneak classified documents out of the office?
"culture of corruption" with who I would ask.
Administration officials have yet to produce any "compelling," let alone "irrefutable," evidence that the bombed complex was a "chemical weapons-related" facility. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told a global CNN television audience that "we have physical evidence" but "are not going to release it."
Is this the same Sandy Berger that got caught trying to sneak classified documents out of the office?
"culture of corruption" with who I would ask.
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
Although, right now, I'd rather have a fiscally conservative guy, vs, whatever mccain is. And what is not sitting well in my craw, is if Romney is a practicing moron, (which is a socially conservative minus the historical poligamy) why would be have been pro-baby killing? There are cicles of logic to chance following that train of though.
I understand the feeling about McCain...but I do think he has the best chance at beating the democratic candidate.
I agree with some of his positions...others I do not.
McCain...or Hillary/Obama? Sorry, but that's how I see it. I don't think Mitt can win in the general.
I feel it would be horrible to have 4 years under the universal healthcare cut and runners.
Although, right now, I'd rather have a fiscally conservative guy, vs, whatever mccain is. And what is not sitting well in my craw, is if Romney is a practicing moron, (which is a socially conservative minus the historical poligamy) why would be have been pro-baby killing? There are cicles of logic to chance following that train of though.
I understand the feeling about McCain...but I do think he has the best chance at beating the democratic candidate.
I agree with some of his positions...others I do not.
McCain...or Hillary/Obama? Sorry, but that's how I see it. I don't think Mitt can win in the general.
I feel it would be horrible to have 4 years under the universal healthcare cut and runners.
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
Is this the same Sandy Berger that got caught trying to sneak classified documents out of the office?
"culture of corruption" with who I would ask.
Yep......I like throwing the 'game" back at the liberals that claim to be walking the "high road". Bush lied, war for oil, etc, etc.
Yet, they FAIL to bring in the democratic past transgressions. That is some how reconciled away and okay....it does not count
Is this the same Sandy Berger that got caught trying to sneak classified documents out of the office?
"culture of corruption" with who I would ask.
Yep......I like throwing the 'game" back at the liberals that claim to be walking the "high road". Bush lied, war for oil, etc, etc.
Yet, they FAIL to bring in the democratic past transgressions. That is some how reconciled away and okay....it does not count