|
|
#81
11-07-2007, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think Ron Paul is the ONLY Reb. who can beatng he would beat Hilary. I know this sounds crazy and I am not saying he would beat her just that he is the only one who has a chnace at it. I do not think anyone who supports the war in Iraq has a chance at the White House in 2008 [/ QUOTE ] Then why do you think Hillary has a chance? [/ QUOTE ] Get your point, but compared to every one on Rep. side, except Paul, she is a dove. Hitler looks like a dove compared to these guys. [/ QUOTE ] Again, Hillary's foreign policy is indistinguishable from GWB's. [/ QUOTE ] Tucker discussed exactly this issue on MSNBC and made a democrat strategist suddenly realize that Hill's foreign policy is indeed virtually identical to GWB's. Watch as he stutters and bursts out with: "Star wars! She would never have done that!" Linky 
|
|
#82
11-07-2007, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Actually, Paul is the only one with a plan to "save Social Security" that can possibly work, if he can get any media attention for that part of his platform. [/ QUOTE ] The same way that the US Army saved the Vietnamese villages? [/ QUOTE ] Is that supposed to be funny? Because it came off as douchey. [/ QUOTE ] It was douchey and not funny. A cheap shot basically. [ QUOTE ] And no. He's the only one that can let young people opt out of SS, not cut benefits, and not raise taxes. He'll do it by saving a trillion dollars a year not maintaining a globe-straddling military empire. [/ QUOTE ] This is what Paul wants to do but how will he get Congress to go along?
|
|
#83
11-07-2007, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Actually, Paul is the only one with a plan to "save Social Security" that can possibly work, if he can get any media attention for that part of his platform. [/ QUOTE ] The same way that the US Army saved the Vietnamese villages? [/ QUOTE ] Is that supposed to be funny? Because it came off as douchey. [/ QUOTE ] It was douchey and not funny. A cheap shot basically. [ QUOTE ] And no. He's the only one that can let young people opt out of SS, not cut benefits, and not raise taxes. He'll do it by saving a trillion dollars a year not maintaining a globe-straddling military empire. [/ QUOTE ] This is what Paul wants to do but how will he get Congress to go along? [/ QUOTE ] He can do an awful lot, being the commander in chief of the military forces. However, he has always maintained that he can't do it alone. He points out that any scenario that sees him elected as the POTUS would have a dramatic effect on the Congress.
|
|
#84
11-07-2007, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Because the reasons he's "different" is because he actually follows the Constitution like he swore an oath to do. Every other member of Congress isn't interested in following their oath. [/ QUOTE ] Or their interpretation of the Constitution is different than yours? [/ QUOTE ] Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. This makes way too much sense to be posted in the politics forum.
|
|
#85
11-07-2007, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Actually, Paul is the only one with a plan to "save Social Security" that can possibly work, if he can get any media attention for that part of his platform. [/ QUOTE ] The same way that the US Army saved the Vietnamese villages? [/ QUOTE ] Iron, what Paul is proposing is a "soft landing" (to borrow Greenspanesque terminology) for social security, medicare/caid etc. They are not going to survive the baby-boom generation anyway and Paul wants to provide a way for people to get out of it now, pay for those we've taught to rely on the taxpayers largesse, and not "throw anyone out in the street". The other crooks seeking office treat this subject as the 3rd rail of politics because there is no easy answer and they want people to continue to believe that the govt can provide them with something for nothing and besides, they can pass on the disaster to the successors.
|
|
#86
11-07-2007, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Actually, Paul is the only one with a plan to "save Social Security" that can possibly work, if he can get any media attention for that part of his platform. [/ QUOTE ] The same way that the US Army saved the Vietnamese villages? [/ QUOTE ] Is that supposed to be funny? Because it came off as douchey. [/ QUOTE ] It was douchey and not funny. A cheap shot basically. [ QUOTE ] And no. He's the only one that can let young people opt out of SS, not cut benefits, and not raise taxes. He'll do it by saving a trillion dollars a year not maintaining a globe-straddling military empire. [/ QUOTE ] This is what Paul wants to do but how will he get Congress to go along? [/ QUOTE ] He can do an awful lot, being the commander in chief of the military forces. However, he has always maintained that he can't do it alone. He points out that any scenario that sees him elected as the POTUS would have a dramatic effect on the Congress. [/ QUOTE ] Ok I understand about being the commander in chief but what about getting something done to allow people to opt out of Social Security? I suppose it would depend on the mandate an election gave him as to how much he could do to convince Congress to change the system.
|
|
#87
11-07-2007, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong. I hope you're right. I'll be voting for Ron Paul without hesitation. I just have no faith in the usual set of morons/sheep doing the right thing in the long run. They will vote against "tax breaks for the rich" and they will vote for "saving social security" and "health care for all". I hope I'm wrong and that you are right. [/ QUOTE ] This is exactly how I feel
|
|
#88
11-07-2007, 06:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Because the reasons he's "different" is because he actually follows the Constitution like he swore an oath to do. Every other member of Congress isn't interested in following their oath. [/ QUOTE ] Or their interpretation of the Constitution is different than yours? [/ QUOTE ] Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. This makes way too much sense to be posted in the politics forum. [/ QUOTE ] No kidding, considering basically everyone in this forum is a freedom-loving psychopath. BTW, nice avatar/loc
|
|
#89
11-07-2007, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
What's douchey about it? Paul wants to end social security and government support for the elderly. You might think that that's a good thing, but it represents the height of doublespeak to talk about how someone is going to do great things for a program they plan on phasing out.
|
|
#90
11-07-2007, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
What's douchey about it? Paul wants to end social security and government support for the elderly. [/ QUOTE ] No he doesn't. Can you not read? There would be no cuts in benefits on those currently dependent on the program. He's simply offering an alternative to those who don't want to get trapped in the ponzi scheme. [ QUOTE ] You might think that that's a good thing, but it represents the height of doublespeak to talk about how someone is going to do great things for a program they plan on phasing out. [/ QUOTE ] No it isn't. His plan specifically to not phase it out while anyone is still dependent on it, and who the hell cares about "doing great things" for a program? Don't we want to do great things for, you know, people?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
