# For Those Of You Who Enjoy Real Political Debates



## Jill (Aug 9, 2011)

For those of you who like to watch political debates, the 3rd GOP Candidates' debate will air on Thursday, August 9 at 9pm ET on FOX News Channel.

Below is the current list of those scheduled to participate:

Herman Cain

Rick Santorum

Ron Paul

Tim Pawlenty

Michelle Bachmann

Mitt Romney

Jon Huntsman

Newt Gingrich

I've got "my short list" of three potential candidates that I really like so far, and two of them are scheduled to be a part of it. I can't wait to watch






Here's a link: http://www.foxnews.c...ates/index.html


----------



## Jill (Aug 9, 2011)

PS ML, if you're reading, the third of my favorites so far _isn't_ Sarah Palin... though I still think she's awesome


----------



## weebiscuit (Aug 10, 2011)

Jill said:


> PS ML, if you're reading, the third of my favorites so far _isn't_ Sarah Palin... though I still think she's awesome


I really like Sarah Palin too, but NOT as a presidential candidate. I think she's political poison. The liberal media have done everything they can to destroy her, and many people will believe what they hear without really checking into what's said.

How do you feel about Herman Cain? I like this man a lot, but there are a few things about him I don't like. He's anti gay rights, and that bothers me greatly as we have many dear gay friends. But I think he's got a sound financial background, and I'd really like to see someone with financial know-how, rather than another lawyer, get into a position of leadership. Just not sure if I would vote for him at this point.

Not sure about Bachman's chances either. I think she's going to suffer because of her voting record.

Newt Gingrich.... ROFL!!! I wouldn't vote for that man if he were running unopposed! I remember his antics during the Clinton/Lewinsky proceedings, taking the high and mighty road while he had screwed around behind his own wife's back. The man has no integrity, IMO. He ended up marrying that "other woman." She's from a small town not too far from where I live.

Mitt Romney... if he couldn't even win the nomination last time around, why do the Repubs think he's actually be able to win the presidency?

Ron Paul... I actually wrote his name in during the last election. If ever there were a candidate who feels we should follow the letter of the Constitution, it's Ron Paul. Again, he doesn't have a chance.

I'm withholding comments on the others at this point. But all-in-all I do NOT think it is a stellar list of potential candidates. Heck, if Trump hadn't made such stupid and foolish comments while he was considering a run for the office, he might have won the nomination. He was doing very well in the polls, then made some stupid remarks. But for my money, I think he might have been the man to get us out of this economic mess.


----------



## Jill (Aug 10, 2011)

Hey, Sandy --

Oh, I love Sarah Palin, but I think we have some good options now (especially if the one I want to say below jumps in). I think that Sarah Palin's calling is doing exactly what she has been doing and that's firing up our voter base. I adore her, but I think she's doing a lot of good for our country doing what she's been doing.

I love *Herman Cain*! I was not happy with what he said awhile back initially about Israel / Right of Return. I don't think he understood the question but he got right on it immediately after and worked out his view and standpoint. That is the ONLY thing I've heard from him that I didn't like. I love everything else I know about him when it comes to the National issues most important to me. He's firmly on my "short list of three" at this point.

*Michelle Bachmann* is another favorite of mine and while the media paints her as too extreme, I pretty much have to do a head nod with all I've heard about her stand points and I have liked all I've heard her say and when I get to the real scoop behind the left wing media haze, I am right there with Bachmann. She's getting a raw deal from the MSM -- go figure. Another on my List of Three.

The third one I have a lot of high hopes for is *Rick Perry*. I'm impressed with all I know so far about him, and I hope he will RUN!

That said it's early and I'm wanting to learn more and watch every debate there is to watch. I lack any excitement about Romney at this point but he does LOOK extremely presidential (shouldn't matter, but probably does). I'm not pulling for Gingrich but prior to one of the other debates, I pegged him as my last place (before the debate) but I liked his answers best after the debate. Not holding out much of a plan to vote for him with all the tormoil going on with his efforts, but just reminding myself to keep an open mind. Maybe Romney, Paul or one of the others I'm not "feeling" yet will impress me tomorrow night. I just cannot wait and I really, really hope the format works better than the CNN one last time.

Pass the popcorn -- it should be a great show!!!


----------



## Jill (Aug 10, 2011)

PS -- my dream is a combination ticket with two of my current top three -- but it's a dream that's subject to change as we all see and learn more. I swear, though, ABO is a winning ticket as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Jill (Aug 10, 2011)

Checking the link now... looks like Herman Cain is out and Gary Johnson is in. I guess I want to hear more from Johnson, but I was really looking forward to more from Herman Cain.

http://www.foxnews.c...ates/index.html


----------



## heartkranch (Aug 10, 2011)

If Rick Perry does get elected that's going to suck...


----------



## weebiscuit (Aug 10, 2011)

I wonder why Cain isn't going to be there? I was looking forward to hearing him answer the debate questions!

I like Rick Perry to an extent... like the others he has some gray areas in his past which will definitely be exploited by the libs if he should get the nomination.

Looks like Obama's numbers are sinking even lower. That man is so incompetent! He really ought to be impeached before we're flying the chinese flag over the federal building, once they call in their debts and we can't pay them because we keep racking up too many of them.


----------



## Jill (Aug 11, 2011)

I just pulled it up this morning, and now Herman Cain is back on and Johnson is off



:yeah


----------



## Jill (Aug 11, 2011)

weebiscuit said:


> Looks like Obama's numbers are sinking even lower. That man is so incompetent! He really ought to be impeached before we're flying the chinese flag over the federal building, once they call in their debts and we can't pay them because we keep racking up too many of them.


I hear you!!!


----------



## Jill (Aug 11, 2011)

heartkranch said:


> If Rick Perry does get elected that's going to suck...


Why do you feel this way?

I don't know as much about Perry as I want to, but one thing that has impressed me tremendously is his jobs record.


----------



## Carriage (Aug 11, 2011)

Jill said:


> PS -- my dream is a combination ticket with two of my current top three -- but it's a dream that's subject to change as we all see and learn more. I swear, though, ABO is a winning ticket as far as I'm concerned.


Hmmm... two out of the three. I'm gonna go out on a limb here (no not really) and just posit a "wild" guess that Ron Paul is not part of your "dream ticket".

IF true, I find this slightly schizophrenic in that you and your peeps keep screaming about taxes (which I agree with) yet refuse to back the only candidate that has repeatedly stated that he would do everything in his power to remove the unConstitutional income tax and dismantle the IRS. His stated desire to put us on a sound money footing would of necessity put an end to corporate dominance in this field. Perhaps you don't like that Constitutional stand. Perhaps you don't like the idea of free-trade abolishment. It IS at its core, a tax issue and a sovereignty issue. Perhaps you don't like the idea of bringing our troops home from over 190 bases (that we know of) around the world. I mean after all the Banker mobsters NEED those troops there in order to plunder the wealth of a given country (Libya, and by extension Africa comes to mind). After all we can't have competing money systems going against the one that has been chosen for us and rammed down our throats. Operating outside of ones self induced paradign is scary at first, but if also rooted in factual truth one can start down the road to recovery. Failure to do so INSURES more of the same and as recent history "should" dictate to you, it doesn't matter which "party" is in dominance.

I gotta find a different wall to bang my head against....

Bb


----------



## Jill (Aug 11, 2011)

I like Ron Paul a lot. He's just not currently on my "short list" -- which like I said, is open to change. Early times and I'm excited about a number of the potential prospects


----------



## heartkranch (Aug 11, 2011)

Jill said:


> Why do you feel this way?
> 
> I don't know as much about Perry as I want to, but one thing that has impressed me tremendously is his jobs record.



Honestly because when his mouth moves it's full of lies.

What most people dont know about Rick Perry is he was a democrat and turned republican when he ran against Jim Hightower for ag commissioner in the early 90's. He was elected easily because most farmers and ranchers would have voted for satan against hightower, that made him the 3rd or 4th most powerful man in the state government.

He likes the power.....

The one that burns the worst is the Trans Texas Corridor. He proposed a 16 lane 6 rail line that ran from Mexico north, It was a toll road with egress and ingress only every 25 miles, it was to be built and maintained by a company from spain so Texans got NO, NONE, ZIP use of it. It was to follow and actually be considered I-45, so the company (whose name escapes me) that managed it was basically and (unconstitutionally) making a profit of the federal infrastructure 100's of 1000's of acres were to be seized in emminent domain, including 30 ranches odn the historical register going back to the original colonists brought in by Stephen F Austin.


----------



## heartkranch (Aug 11, 2011)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/08/13/236356/-Dont-let-Eminent-Domain-and-dozers-catch-you-crying


----------



## 2minis4us (Aug 11, 2011)

Carriage said:


> Hmmm... two out of the three. I'm gonna go out on a limb here (no not really) and just posit a "wild" guess that Ron Paul is not part of your "dream ticket".
> 
> IF true, I find this slightly schizophrenic in that you and your peeps keep screaming about taxes (which I agree with) yet refuse to back the only candidate that has repeatedly stated that he would do everything in his power to remove the unConstitutional income tax and dismantle the IRS. His stated desire to put us on a sound money footing would of necessity put an end to corporate dominance in this field. Perhaps you don't like that Constitutional stand. Perhaps you don't like the idea of free-trade abolishment. It IS at its core, a tax issue and a sovereignty issue. Perhaps you don't like the idea of bringing our troops home from over 190 bases (that we know of) around the world. I mean after all the Banker mobsters NEED those troops there in order to plunder the wealth of a given country (Libya, and by extension Africa comes to mind). After all we can't have competing money systems going against the one that has been chosen for us and rammed down our throats. Operating outside of ones self induced paradign is scary at first, but if also rooted in factual truth one can start down the road to recovery. Failure to do so INSURES more of the same and as recent history "should" dictate to you, it doesn't matter which "party" is in dominance.
> 
> ...



Dear Lady, you nailed it !!


----------



## Jill (Aug 11, 2011)

heartkranch said:


> Honestly because when his mouth moves it's full of lies.
> 
> What most people dont know about Rick Perry is he was a democrat and turned republican when he ran against Jim Hightower for ag commissioner in the early 90's. He was elected easily because most farmers and ranchers would have voted for satan against hightower, that made him the 3rd or 4th most powerful man in the state government.
> 
> ...


Thanks for responding. Yes, I did know about his democrat past. I still want to learn more about him and am really glad it looks like 2013 will be a better year no matter who the GOP runs. I just hope it's a great ticket.


----------



## weebiscuit (Aug 11, 2011)

Jill said:


> The third one I have a lot of high hopes for is *Rick Perry*. I'm impressed with all I know so far about him, and I hope he will RUN!


I don't think all that highly of Perry because of his flip-flopping on the gay rights issue. At first Rick Perry had no problem that gay marriage became legal in New York state, telling reporters that it was fine with him. But as soon as he was interviewed by the extreme religious right's Family Research Council, he flip-flopped and announced he was against it.

Perry’s claim that he supports states’ rights to govern themselves, while simultaneously supporting the anti-gay “Federal Marriage Amendment” is impossible to reconcile.

If only he'd stayed on one side of the issue, I'd hold him in higher regard, but like all politicians, he says what he thinks he needs to say to get votes. That does not indicate a person of high integrity.

I also read somewhere a few months ago, and I wish to heck I could remember where it was and WHAT it was, about the job creations in Texas. While Perry touts all the favorable business and job growth in Texas, there was a big caveat, and for the life of me I can't remember what it was, but whatever it was it completely tempered the economic growth gains and put it in an entirely new perspective, which didn't make Texas look as good as Perry would have people believe. I can't remember if most of the jobs created were government, or what, but it was *something* that took a bit of the air out of Perry's balloon.


----------



## weebiscuit (Aug 11, 2011)

heartkranch said:


> If Rick Perry does get elected that's going to suck...


You're from Texas... tell us YOUR perspective of Perry. Or, do you just say it would suck because you are not of the same political party as he is?

I am not at ALL favorably disposed to Perry. besides the things I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think he's got some religious baggage. I DO NOT want politics and religion mixed, and things I've read about Perry lead me to believe he's been "evangelizing" and I don't want an evangelist in the White House.


----------



## Jill (Aug 12, 2011)

I actually like a President to have a strong faith. But, I know that won't be the way many others would feel.


----------



## CharlesFamily (Aug 12, 2011)

weebiscuit said:


> You're from Texas... tell us YOUR perspective of Perry. Or, do you just say it would suck because you are not of the same political party as he is?
> 
> I am not at ALL favorably disposed to Perry. besides the things I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think he's got some religious baggage. I DO NOT want politics and religion mixed, and things I've read about Perry lead me to believe he's been "evangelizing" and I don't want an evangelist in the White House.



LOL - this would actually be one reason I MIGHT vote for him! It would be nice to have a President who actually "walks the walk" and not just "talks the talk" when it comes to getting the right wing religious vote.

Barbara


----------



## heartkranch (Aug 12, 2011)

weebiscuit said:


> You're from Texas... tell us YOUR perspective of Perry. Or, do you just say it would suck because you are not of the same political party as he is?
> 
> I am not at ALL favorably disposed to Perry. besides the things I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think he's got some religious baggage. I DO NOT want politics and religion mixed, and things I've read about Perry lead me to believe he's been "evangelizing" and I don't want an evangelist in the White House.



I posted when Jill asked me the reasons if you look.

As a "younger" crowd (I'm 24), all I hear are older people argue and get feeling hurt. Like last Christmas, and my great aunt is still not talking to my grandparents because the P word came up.

IMO there isn't a reason to pick a party. Go for the one I personally like. I voted for Obama(my reasons then was because he sounds like he was going to change a lot) well I'm NOT voting for him this time around. I fall more on the demo side, because I think Clinton was great.


----------



## Jill (Aug 12, 2011)

For those of you who watched last night, what did you think?

My "pick" for the debate "winner" is not who I feel I'll vote for (I'll explain later if interest dictates). I thought it was the best debate I ever saw... but the down side is I was so "wound up" after watching that I was up so late with those wheels in my head turning.

So, what did you folks think of the debate???


----------



## CharlesFamily (Aug 12, 2011)

I didn't get a chance to watch it - no cable. I'm hoping it will be available on-line in its entirety at some point.

Barbara


----------



## Jill (Aug 12, 2011)

I hope it will be available online, Barbara. It "should" be, but you know how should doesn't always mean will. I will be on the look out for the video footage and will share the link(s) if/when I find them.


----------



## CharlesFamily (Aug 12, 2011)

Jill said:


> I hope it will be available online, Barbara. It "should" be, but you know how should doesn't always mean will. I will be on the look out for the video footage and will share the link(s) if/when I find them.



Thank you!


----------



## tagalong (Aug 12, 2011)

I recorded it so I could scan through it later... surprised?

Just a few quick thoughts on my way out to the barn....

Mitt Romney came out on top. He looked and sounded a bit over-rehearsed but Presidential. None of the others really went after him - he was head and shoulders above everyone else IMO.

Pawlenty & Bachmann going after each other did not really help either one of them but was entertaining. Bachmann said that she wished the country had defaulted? That will not go over well with may who were watching. Her fundamentalist side is going to work against her. Will she be able to separate church and state? I am not sure.

Newt was Newt. Stick a fork in him - he's done. OF COURSE he is going to get "gotcha" questions - his whole campaign is a mess and a joke and he contradicts himself constantly.

Santorum is also done - I have Republican friends in Pennsylvania who cannot stand the man and were glad to be rid of him.

Huntsman looked nervous IMO. His only hope is to come out as a bit of a moderate because he cannot get any further right than Bachmann - she has that corner all sewn up.

Maybe the next debate will have Perry and Palin in it - and things will fire up a lot more.


----------



## Carriage (Aug 15, 2011)

Ron Paul... I actually wrote his name in during the last election. If ever there were a candidate who feels we should follow the letter of the Constitution, it's Ron Paul. Again, he doesn't have a chance.

Hi Wee,

Your willingness to write him in is to be applauded. However, concerning your assertion that he doesn't have a chance, here is why you rightfully feel this way along with the rest of us. Can it be overcome? Don't know. One would think that things had become transparent enough and the economic destruction so complete that he "should" be a shoe-in. He was by far the front runner the last time around yet just didn't seem to be able to capitalize on it. Below will explain why. One must remember that neither party wants him. The Rep's. don't want him because he would spell and end to perpetual war, bad money policy and a return to Constitutional law. The Dems don't want him because he would put an end to "revenue" (tax and theft policy) and a return to Constitutional law.

BOTH parties HATE the Constitution. Below show admission right from the mouth of the folk doing this.

Despite Ron Paul’s overwhelming success in Saturday’s Ames straw poll, finishing second to Michele Bachmann by less than two hundred votes, in an astounding video establishment media talking heads admit what we’ve been highlighting from the very start – that there is a deliberate policy to sideline, ignore and discredit Paul’s campaign.

WATCH VIDEO

After pointing out that Ron Paul only lost to Michele Bachmann by a tiny percentage (and that after accusations that Bachmann’s campaign attempted to rig the result by buying 4,000 votes), and that the Ames result was virtually a “tie for first,” Politico’s Roger Simon said the reason for him being ignored was that “the media doesn’t believe he has a hoot in hells chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we’re gonna ignore him.”

CNN host Howard Kurtz even admits that, “We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race”.

The bizarre aspect of this clip is that Simon admits the Ames straw poll is a key indicator of the race and was “as good as a win” for Ron Paul, then completely contradicts himself by saying Paul has no chance of winning. This dichotomy illustrates how the media-generated perception of Paul’s campaign as futile has no basis in reality – it is nothing more than a hoax designed to manipulate the American people.

Indeed, it is the establishment’s fear that Ron Paul could build the kind of momentum for a win that drives the deliberate policy to ignore his campaign. By manufacturing the hoax that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, the establishment hopes their rhetoric will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Look at it another way. It’s almost a given that former Federal Reserve insider Herman Cain has no chance of winning the Republican candidacy, and the polls prove it, but you won’t hear the mainstream media endlessly obsessing about the futility of his campaign as they do with Ron Paul, even as Paul’s poll results illustrate how he is a strong front runner.

The establishment denigrates Paul’s campaign not because they think he can’t win, but because they’re scared hemight win. That’s why they’ve made it their job to try and derail his momentum at every turn. It’s their job to manipulate the American public into thinking they’re wasting their vote if they support Paul because he has no chance of winning, when the opposite is true, he has every chance of winning, if only he was given an equal platform with the other candidates.

Politico’s efforts to pretend Ron Paul doesn’t exist were brazenly apparent in the first incarnation of their headline regarding the Ames straw poll result, which was entitled, Michele Bachmann wins Ames Straw Poll, Tim Pawlenty gets third (the headline was later changed).

Despite the fact that Ron Paul beat Pawlenty, who subsequently announced he was dropping out of the racealtogether, by over 2,300 votes, and Paul trailed Bachmann by a mere 152 votes, it was Pawlenty and not Paul who made the headline of the article.

No wonder the headline was later amended, as the You Tuber in the video below documents. This was a transparent and embarrasing effort to ignore Ron Paul’s existence altogether, a tactic we’ll be seeing plenty more of over the next 12 months.


----------



## Jill (Aug 15, 2011)

CharlesFamily said:


> I didn't get a chance to watch it - no cable. I'm hoping it will be available on-line in its entirety at some point.
> 
> Barbara


Barbara -- Here is a link. It's broken down into segments, and I'm not sure the entire debate is available, but I like that you can look at the video thumbnails and read the short description of what each segment features from the debate. There's on "big" video picture at the top of the page, but page down and you will see lots of thumbnails with the descriptions. I thought the debate was really good. Enjoy, Jill

http://video.foxnews...ylist_id=165456


----------



## andi (Aug 15, 2011)

Thank You so Much Carriage for posting about Ron Paul. I am very slowly, very carefully, wading into the Political pool and off course it is very easy to get overwhelmed. I am AMAZED at the stances he takes. He has some very strong opinions and doesnt just use some crowd motivating gimmics to make people agree and cheer for him. He explains the logic behind his views and relates them all back to the constitution. While some of his opinions may not be super popular, they are all based on individual liberty and the idea that you can't limit individual rights to appease a group. That is what makes democracy fail and why we are a republic.

Here is a link to one website that I found that really helped me ALOT in reading about the candidates in a relatively straight forword understandable format. . .

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm


----------



## minimomNC (Aug 15, 2011)

And now James has me reading about the candidates too. I am finding that I also like Ron Paul on alot of issues and the things I might not agree with aren't issues with the running of the United States. I am reading about the others too but so far he has been my pick. I am taking this seriously this time around.


----------



## Jill (Aug 15, 2011)

minimomNC said:


> ... I am taking this seriously this time around.


I bet a lot of people are taking it more seriously _this_ time around. Maybe that's just wishful thinking? I've always taken it seriously -- even way back when I voted for Perot



...


----------



## minimomNC (Aug 15, 2011)

Ok before I say anything, was your comment a joke or were you serious and just being snarky.


----------



## Jill (Aug 15, 2011)

minimomNC said:


> Ok before I say anything, was your comment a joke or were you serious and just being snarky.


I'm very serious in that I think a lot of people are taking the election and their vote much more seriously this time around





As to any snarkiness, I wasn't aiming in that direction BUT I was making fun of _myself_ and my own vote way back in 1992


----------



## CharlesFamily (Aug 15, 2011)

Jill said:


> Barbara -- Here is a link. It's broken down into segments, and I'm not sure the entire debate is available, but I like that you can look at the video thumbnails and read the short description of what each segment features from the debate. There's on "big" video picture at the top of the page, but page down and you will see lots of thumbnails with the descriptions. I thought the debate was really good. Enjoy, Jill
> 
> http://video.foxnews...ylist_id=165456


Thank you, Jill! I had seen those and was able to watch some of them. I'll get back over there to watch the rest.


----------



## weebiscuit (Aug 16, 2011)

Jill said:


> I bet a lot of people are taking it more seriously _this_ time around. Maybe that's just wishful thinking? I've always taken it seriously -- even way back when I voted for Perot
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Geeze, Jill..... you and I must be twins, separated at birth. *I* voted for Perot, too!


----------



## weebiscuit (Aug 16, 2011)

Carriage said:


> Ron Paul... I actually wrote his name in during the last election. If ever there were a candidate who feels we should follow the letter of the Constitution, it's Ron Paul. Again, he doesn't have a chance.
> 
> Hi Wee,
> 
> Your willingness to write him in is to be applauded. However, concerning your assertion that he doesn't have a chance, here is why you rightfully feel this way along with the rest of us. Can it be overcome? Don't know. One would think that things had become transparent enough and the economic destruction so complete that he "should" be a shoe-in. He was by far the front runner the last time around yet just didn't seem to be able to capitalize on it. Below will explain why. One must remember that neither party wants him.


Thanks for posting that info! And I agree completely that neither party wants him. And WHY???? Because he's not in the pocket of liberal left wingers or conservative big business interests. He's strictly a Constitutional "cash and carry" kind of guy. And neither party wants him because of that very reason. He owes no one favors. He's not courting special interest groups. He simply uses the Constitution as a guideline for government, and that is something neither party does any longer.

Even Fox news, the conservative stronghold, seems to ignore him, or if they do mention him it's never in a favorable light. They don't really degrade him, but they treat him like someone's mentally deranged brother that people like to keep in the basement, and are embarrassed when he climbs up the stairs and begins talking to the neighbors.

If everyone who voted had enough brains to really listen to what he's saying and elect him, things would really change in this country. What saddens me is that his age, (and he LOOKS his age), is going against him as well. And some people will look at him next to Romney, who seems full of vigor and has the advantage of fewer years, and want this guy to lead them.

Fox News seems to be backing Bachman. Maybe that's just my take on it, but she's interviewed more than any other candidate on their news programs, and so far her entire platform seems to be based on two things: "Get Obama out of the White House and repeal Obamacare." I don't hear a single concrete thing from her. Truthfully, she's beginning to remind me of Nancy Pelosi! (UGH)!

The United States is so far removed from it's constitutional beginnings as to be laughable. And it seems to me that Ron Paul is the only person who actually recognizes this and wants us to get back to a lawful form of government.

The media hypes up the threat of a nuclear Iran, and only Ron Paul sees that little nation for what it is. And if they want to blow Israel off the map, that's Israel's problem and shouldn't be ours. Yes, we need to support out allies, but my feeling has always been that if we had NOT been such staunch allies of Israel we would have never become the target of Muslim extremists. They hate us because we support Israel.

And the other thing which bothers me about the national debt is that we hear ONLY about cuts to Medicare and Social Security. There is so much fraud in government, so much waste, and payouts to different agencies which do exactly the same thing. There are probably thousands and thousands of goverment workers milking the public teat and not doing a thing. If the government would simply "clean house" and get rid of all the useless staff, we'd save billions in salaries, health insurance, and retirement payouts to them. And they need to simply stop replacing government workers who retire! Perhaps that will mean that a few more people will have to do a little extra work. Well, they should be thrilled they even have a job in this economy, and do it willingly in order to stay employed.

I am also getting sick and tired of the Tea Party being so maligned by the liberal press. The members of the Tea Party are AMERICANS! Yet they are treated with the same disrespect as people like Bobby Seale, Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden and the rest of the "Chicago Eight" who were on trial after the tumultuous 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. Members of the Tea Party are not terrorists, rioters, or anarchists. They are simply americans who are fed up with the corruption and malfeasance in our capital and want our legislators accountable to the people of this country.

Geeze.... I have to get to bed.


----------



## Carriage (Aug 16, 2011)

andi said:


> Thank You so Much Carriage for posting about Ron Paul. I am very slowly, very carefully, wading into the Political pool and off course it is very easy to get overwhelmed. I am AMAZED at the stances he takes. He has some very strong opinions and doesnt just use some crowd motivating gimmics to make people agree and cheer for him. He explains the logic behind his views and relates them all back to the constitution. While some of his opinions may not be super popular, they are all based on individual liberty and the idea that you can't limit individual rights to appease a group. That is what makes democracy fail and why we are a republic.
> 
> I am glad that you are taking a look. Recon is everything. Yes a stark difference between him and the banker sponsored chaff, is that he IS genuine, speaks the truth and appears to be devoid of electioneering guile.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carriage (Aug 16, 2011)

weebiscuit said:


> Thanks for posting that info! And I agree completely that neither party wants him. And WHY???? Because he's not in the pocket of liberal left wingers or conservative big business interests. He's strictly a Constitutional "cash and carry" kind of guy. And neither party wants him because of that very reason. He owes no one favors. He's not courting special interest groups. He simply uses the Constitution as a guideline for government, and that is something neither party does any longer.
> 
> Good points ALL Miss Sandy.
> 
> ...


----------



## weebiscuit (Aug 16, 2011)

Jill said:


> I actually like a President to have a strong faith. But, I know that won't be the way many others would feel.


I certainly have no objection to a president having strong faith, as long as he keeps it out of the Oval Office. I think many people of great faith also have a well-developed conscience and a strong moral code. But so do atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. But we don't want any of them in the White House, now do we?

There is no religious stipulation for the presidency, just as there is no religious requirement in the Constitution. If we allow ANYONE of ANY FAITH to make public policy based on his faith, then we lose our liberty.


----------

