General Music Chat

Perry heading back to TX to "reassess" his campaign, Bachman about to announce she is suspending hers. Gingrich might survive until New Hampshire but will fade as well. Out of the three remaining candidates I prefer Paul, but will take Romney over Santorum. That said, I doubt that Obama is beatable by the GOP unless something disastrous happens.

Perry has decided to jump to South Carolina, it would appear, but candidates who skip a state generally perform poorly in the next state because, even though they are there campaigning, they're not really getting as many mentions on the national press. The caucuses are really a, "Flavor of the week," sort of deal as we saw with all of the changes in who led Iowa and the final result of that caucus.

Anyway, if you're not there at all that week, then you really can't be one of the flavors, can you?

Bachmann is ending hers completely, and it seems there is some question as to whether or not she's going to seek Congressional reelection as her district has been redrawn, presumably in a way making it more difficult for her to win, or it wouldn't have been mentioned.

In the meantime, even Conservative talk radio is still beating on Newt Gingrich's dead horse, and it was his own, "Fellow conservatives," as well as Romney's negative ads in Iowa, that caused him to drop so quickly after being ahead in the polls.

People are complaining that Gingrich is now, "Out for revenge," against Mitt Romney, but yeah, who wouldn't be? I heard Glenn Beck this morning making the complaint about Gingrich describing himself as, "Wilsonian," and stating that Wilson, in 1917, openly supported the uprising in Russia and called it a, "Great win for Democracy."

Glenn Beck then basically alluded to the social restrictions and millions of deaths that took place UNDER STALIN'S LEADERSHIP and said, "That's what Wilson called a win for Democracy and Gingrich calls himself, 'Wilsonian." Clearly, Wilson could not predict the future so Glenn Beck, basically took Wilson's words out of historical context...which is basically to say that he used Wilson's words as if Wilson knew what would happen concerning Stalin-led Russia and approved!

The thing is, people don't know about the history of 20th-Century Russia, and nor do they care, they just know that Russia and the U.S.S.R. are bad and they did bad things. While Glenn Beck did not specifically invoke Stalin's name, (or the jig might be up) he did specifically mention the U.S.S.R. which came into being FIVE YEARS after Wilson made the comment. Josef Stalin took power seven years after the comment was made by Wilson.

Anyway, Stalin and Lenin are so different that merely linking the two in terms of what happened historically is offensive enough, but then to expect Wilson to have known the future in reference to a statement made in 1917 is just presposterous. And, finally, to use that one statement, TAKEN COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT, in order to criticize Gingrich for classifying himself as, "Wilsonian," is patently false.

But, people know the U.S.S.R. was bad, and now apparently Wilson supported the U.S.S.R., (which didn't exist until after his Presidency) and Gingrich said himself that he is, "Wilsonian," so now Gingrich must be a Communist. Or, whatever crazy s*** that people believe when people like Glenn Beck pull crap like this.

By the way, I don't even like or dislike Gingrich.

Anyway, Bachmann's hasn't endorsed anyone yet, of course, I doubt if any of them really want her to.

Ron Paul's getting the young conservative, the Conservatives had better hope that he doesn't just decide to run as an independent if he loses, or the election belongs to Obama, guaranteed.

It seems like it is going to be between Romney and Santorum, but Romney needs as many people to stay in the race for as long as possible because, right now, there are only three types of Conservatives.

1.) The ones who want Obama out and otherwise don't care.

2.) The ones who think Romney is a flip-flopping closet Moderate, or even, closet Democrat...from their perspective.

3.) Supporters.

He has Number Three, by definition. He is just hoping to keep the votes that belong to people in the first or second group divided as much as possible, or he's probably pretty screwed. There are a great many Conservatives that don't really think Romney is at all Conservative, so they'll vote for any Conservative that is not Romney. So, the more, "Any Conservatives," the better for Romney.

I can't help but like Rick Santorum even though I disagree with nearly everything that comes out of his mouth. The thing that I like about him is that he at least doesn't sway away from his values like the others do...he puts everything out there. I mean, he acts like a man, and that's all there is to that one. He also ran a positive campaign in Iowa. If not Obama (though I wish there were Leftist options besides Obama!) I'd probably take Santorum because he's the only one (other than Paul) that I truly have respect for.

I respect Paul, but the brother's insane. I would love nothing more than to be an Isolationist country, but when China basically owns us, and we have been out and about playing World Police Department for the last 50+ years, we really aren't in a position to just pull back and say, "Hey, sorry to bother you guys, carry on."

Under Wilsons regime , Hundreds of thousands of Americans still enjoyed coffee, toast and eggnog on their Christmas mornings... Under Stalin's regime, Millions of people were starrved to death for many mornings..(More Russian Peasants died under Stalin than jews died under Hitler)

If there is one silver lining to all this American politicking, its that these "white bread" candidates aren't actually smart enough to be as damn evil as Stalin was.

Just a prediction if Romney wins two of the next three, he will eventually wind up the Republican Candidate.

I dont know how he stands up next to Obama.

Only time will tell

In the meantime, even Conservative talk radio is still beating on Newt Gingrich's dead horse, and it was his own, "Fellow conservatives," as well as Romney's negative ads in Iowa, that caused him to drop so quickly after being ahead in the polls.

I think Newt did more to damage his own campaign than anything anyone else did. His comments about topics like Child Labor Laws, his lying about his first divorce, etc... Nothing he did was designed to win an election or demonstrate to the American people that he actually had a plan as a President.

I don't think for a second Newt was in it to win it or else he would have ran a smarter campaign designed to win. I think Newt simply plans on selling a book and increasing his "brand". I wouldn't be surprised if Newt's ultimate goal is some kind of radio program or show on FAUX News.

...so Glenn Beck, basically took Wilson's words out of historical context...

Which is what Beck does best. At this point, I think Beck has become totally irrelevant. He doesn't have a truthful bone in his body. He's simply out to sell the Beck brand and make millions off conservative hate radio.

I can't help but like Rick Santorum even though I disagree with nearly everything that comes out of his mouth. The thing that I like about him is that he at least doesn't sway away from his values like the others do...he puts everything out there. I mean, he acts like a man, and that's all there is to that one. He also ran a positive campaign in Iowa. If not Obama (though I wish there were Leftist options besides Obama!) I'd probably take Santorum because he's the only one (other than Paul) that I truly have respect for.

Why someone other than Obama?

This continues to make me curious, because I can't think of anyone I'd rather have in office than Obama, except maybe Tom Vilsack (who ran for the 2008 Dem nomination but didn't get far enough financially). Vilsack, to me, is an amazing guy... But I still really like Obama. I just wish Obama had a congress that felt like working with him instead of opposing everything.

I respect Paul, but the brother's insane. I would love nothing more than to be an Isolationist country,

Really? Why?

I think the inevitable is the opposite: we're going to be a global economy and a global democracy someday. And the sooner we get there the better for everyone.

but when China basically owns us, and we have been out and about playing World Police Department for the last 50+ years, we really aren't in a position to just pull back and say, "Hey, sorry to bother you guys, carry on."

I think Dr. Paul recognizes that we're now part of a global economy. What he said was he wants to strictly follow the Constitution: only Congress can declare war. This would make it much tougher for any administration to act as the world's policeman, something I totally agree with. I also believe that we need to take care of our own before spreading our tax dollars around the globe, especially to states such as Israel.

I'm going with Newt as long as he holds out.
I will never vote for Romney. He's just another arlen specter, ( I will be what ever you want me to be, just give me that badge, oh and all the goodies that go with it)
If Romney gets the nomination I relay don't know what I will do.

I really don't know what the fascination is with Ron Paul, I guess it just that the new generation is suicidal, We gave all the jobs to china, and now they want to give them the control of the high seas to go with it.
just plain stupid.

Just a prediction if Romney wins two of the next three, he will eventually wind up the Republican Candidate.

I dont know how he stands up next to Obama.

Only time will tell

Romney is Oboma lite. Goes well with Millers.......

I think Dr. Paul recognizes that we're now part of a global economy. What he said was he wants to strictly follow the Constitution: only Congress can declare war. This would make it much tougher for any administration to act as the world's policeman, something I totally agree with. I also believe that we need to take care of our own before spreading our tax dollars around the globe, especially to states such as Israel.

I can agree with you on that Jimmy.

I hate how easily and quickly we can send our troops to war to police the world. Iraq really bothered me (Bush's rush job/Cheney's lies/etc.). The UN really needs to be doing the policing instead of us leading the way most of the time. We're too quick to act and the rest of the world seems too quick to sit on their hands. I think if we acted slower and used peer pressure and guilt a bit more, we could get the rest of the world to step up to the plate when it comes to human atrocities that need policing.


And I agree about our tax dollars too. As left as I lean, I'd love to see a far more limited government that exists simply to provide essentials: security, roads, police, health care... I think if any of us had a chance to actually look at the budget and see all the myriad of places our tax dollars are going to, we'd probably puke...

"Walk softly but carry a big stick". To me this underlines what we should be doing; having a capable and state of the art defensive military that is only used to defend our borders or, when necessary, aid our allies. An 8 year occupation at the cost of $800 billion is not walking softly, it's stomping around like a five year old.

I'm sure glad both you guys are wrong, and ron paul will start fading out going into South Carolina.
Cause sure I don't want to live in an post empirical america.
high unemployment, inflation and labor riots.

I think Newt did more to damage his own campaign than anything anyone else did. His comments about topics like Child Labor Laws, his lying about his first divorce, etc... Nothing he did was designed to win an election or demonstrate to the American people that he actually had a plan as a President.

I don't think for a second Newt was in it to win it or else he would have ran a smarter campaign designed to win. I think Newt simply plans on selling a book and increasing his "brand". I wouldn't be surprised if Newt's ultimate goal is some kind of radio program or show on FAUX News.

You're absolutely right that he damaged his own campaign, but not to the extent that I would believe that he would lose half of his supporters in a month. He certainly didn't damge his campaign in the way that Perry did, for instance. Besides, my problem is just the beating of a dead horse, it's over for Newt, leave the guy alone on Conservative Radio. You won, Glenn Beck, you and others like you (i.e. Sean Hannity) isn't that enough?

Your second paragraph may or may not be right. I don't think that he necessarily thought he would win, but I don't think self-promotion was the name of the game, either. I think that he just wanted to get some of his own ideas out there, and seeing that a reasonably high number of voters liked his ideas, other candidates (read: Romney) would adopt those ideas.

Of course, that was before Romney hit Gingrich with a blitzkrieg of negative and misinforming ads. It was honestly ridiculous. You can Youtube them. It takes everything the guy did out of context...as if Romney has never flip-flopped himself.

Which is what Beck does best. At this point, I think Beck has become totally irrelevant. He doesn't have a truthful bone in his body. He's simply out to sell the Beck brand and make millions off conservative hate radio.

If he's making the bucks, he's relevant. There are some people that think Glenn Beck's word and the word of God is one and the same. Those people get a vote, as well, don't underestimate the Beck influence.

Why someone other than Obama?

This continues to make me curious, because I can't think of anyone I'd rather have in office than Obama, except maybe Tom Vilsack (who ran for the 2008 Dem nomination but didn't get far enough financially). Vilsack, to me, is an amazing guy... But I still really like Obama. I just wish Obama had a congress that felt like working with him instead of opposing everything.

I should point out that I said, "A Leftist," besides Obama. I would not vote for either of the main candidates in the general election, I'm going to do what I've done since 2000 and write in, "Bill Clinton." The constitution sucks, man, I'll take Clinton over anyone. I've known no better times than those under the leadership of Clinton, because he is an Economic genius. Is he a genius because he openly stole Ross Perot's ideas? Probably. But, that will teach Ross Perot not to have a stance on anything other than Economic matters, won't it.

Obama's healthcare plan sucks, by the way. I say that as a Socialist. The insurance companies will have the best of it for no less than ten reasons. It's for another thread, I'm happy enough to discuss it with you, but it needs it's own thread.

Really? Why?

I think the inevitable is the opposite: we're going to be a global economy and a global democracy someday. And the sooner we get there the better for everyone.

You're right that it's inevitable, but that doesn't change what I want. We have starving people in this country, we're the number one exporter of wheat, corn, and second in tomatoes. How does that make sense? We need to keep the focus 100% internal until 100% of our ducks are in a row. We can self-sustain, but we have greedy people and greedy corporations who are out to find a way to rape the rest of the world because raping Americans isn't enough.

We need to have a tertiary economy, as we always have had, to some extent, but we also need to get back to a primary and secondary economy. The companies and the unions are equally to blame for industrial outsourcing, when you have greed on both ends the entire process breaks down. The United States, however, could be the entire world as far as the United States is concerned, maybe North America, but no further than that.

It's greed man, screws the whole thing up.

[/quote]

I think Dr. Paul recognizes that we're now part of a global economy. What he said was he wants to strictly follow the Constitution: only Congress can declare war. This would make it much tougher for any administration to act as the world's policeman, something I totally agree with. I also believe that we need to take care of our own before spreading our tax dollars around the globe, especially to states such as Israel.

The problem is, you get into a Constitutional self-contradiction. FDR did it right, of course, he waited until he had Congress. However, the declaration of war is nothing more than a technicality, a window-dressing, a show. The problem that you run into is that the President is, Constitutionally, the Commander-in-Chief of the entire Armed Forces. He can deploy them anywhere he wants without declaring a war.

The, "War on Terror," for example, was not a declaration of war in the strictest sense. You declare war on a country, not a concept. The President can deploy troops freely, with exception to the National Guard, the deployment of which strictly rests in Congress' hands.

When America became an empire - it became it's enemies. All the elements of Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany are becoming manifest in our government. Homeland Security? TSA? Puleeeze!

I'm not the slightest bit worried about Islamic terroism. I've fought tougher terrorists than that and laughed at them. I'm very much afraid of my own govt.

And the govt liars aren't worried about terrorism either. If they were, the border would not be wide open. An armoured division could come through our southern borders and we probably wouldn't notice it. Don't tell me we're at war. I've fought a war and this ain't it. THis is a war on us.

For defence - we have 10k nukes or more. What the hell do you need eh? Israel is still extent because she has 300.

What has being an empire done for you? It's bankrupted your country and destroyed your kid's futures. That's what it has done for you.

Talbot

When America became an empire - it became it's enemies. All the elements of Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany are becoming manifest in our government. Homeland Security? TSA? Puleeeze!

I'm not the slightest bit worried about Islamic terroism. I've fought tougher terrorists than that and laughed at them. I'm very much afraid of my own govt.

And the govt liars aren't worried about terrorism either. If they were, the border would not be wide open. An armoured division could come through our southern borders and we probably wouldn't notice it. Don't tell me we're at war. I've fought a war and this ain't it. THis is a war on us.

For defence - we have 10k nukes or more. What the hell do you need eh? Israel is still extent because she has 300.

What has being an empire done for you? It's bankrupted your country and destroyed your kid's futures. That's what it has done for you.

Talbot

like most slogans they feel good in your ear...
but america like nazi germany or the soviet union. Where is the evidence for that.
you need to read a hisotry book we don't even approach the colonial practices of Great Britain
as a matter of fact most of the things we are falsely accused of, are the institutions the UK left behind for us to clean up.
to have atrocities, you must people to commit them.
so where are these legions of jack booted storm troopers.
are they the Marines? the Coast gaurd?
Your son the GI?
Ron Paul??? do you praise our boys openly, but secretly prepare war crime trials for them?

Nukes only...? I'd like to see you try to solve Syria or Egypt problem with a MK IV tactical nuke.
and you are going to tell me your think differently than Hitler or Genghis Khan.


being an empire has given us the strongest military in the world,
the American oil bourse has allowed us to out-spend the rest of the world 7 to one in military hardware.
We keep the shipping lanes safe for all the world and all the dictators at bay.
who do you want to give that job to???
well that's the boy who runs the world.
Are you f**k people really that ignorant??
do you really believe your so special that you get to live in this paradise for free??

Why don't you think about who and what would benefit from the most peaceful and benign empire the world has ever seen leaving their post?
who do you think really wants this to happen?
have you counted their dead? and who's among them?

that's going to be our song from now on?
America the coward....
America the quitter....
And when the gates come down, as they always do for the timid and the intoxicated.
we can tell posterity;
Oh our hands are clean we at least shed no blood.

go ahead america, run away....
and God Himself will spit when your name is mentioned.

Sonny when I grew up America was a free country. You just trot on over to an airport and tell me how free you are. DUI roadblocks? swat teams serving warrrents? No opposition parties? Constant war and a currency devalued almost to zilch. (a dollar is now worth a nickle.)

We are free to obey. I recommend a book for you: "They thought they were free," which is about the Germans under Adolf.

Study history - compare the fifties in the USA to now. There is simply no comparison. The door has slammed shut. It's over.

Talbot