|
Post by Jogo on Jan 10, 2008 21:08:41 GMT -4
US President is a pretty big job so I think it ends up being an important ellection for the whole world. With all the info on the internet and my "friend" John Stewart I end up following the US political scene more or less closely. There's definitely one thing that doesn't stop to amaze me. The more I hear about the Republican ideas, the more I can't believe they have the support of more or less half of the country. I'm not a very political person but even to me they seem old fashioned. Despite the different ways of thinking around the whole world, there's no other developed place in the world where that kind of ideas would have that much support. The US are economically one of the most developed countries in the world but culturaly it still has a lot to grow and with its cultural growth, I can help to believe republicans will have to make adjustments in their way of thinking and I think in this election we are already starting to see republicans who think more and more like the democrats. Just a general observation but I guess you can tell which side I feel closer too.
|
|
|
Post by chang on Jan 10, 2008 21:38:52 GMT -4
If Bloomberg runs, I think he's the best choice. The last thing we need at this juncture is playing party politics. Playing party politics is what got us into the overall "mess" we're in right now. Economy's pretty much guaranteed to hit a recession unless something drastic happens. Iraq will always remain a party line topic. Republicans may talk about not supporting it now but if they don't win the Presidency... that's a different story. He takes firm stances and works for the safety/health of his people.
But if I to vote on the most awesome slogan... it would definitely be...
CAN YOU SMEEEEEEEEEEEELLLL WHAT BA-RACK IS COOKIN?!?!
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 10, 2008 22:30:34 GMT -4
Iraq will always remain a party line topic. Republicans may talk about not supporting it now but if they don't win the Presidency... that's a different story. i'm with you on bloomberg, but about iraq, it's just the same identical party, but different words. the leading "democrats" in the polls can't even guarantee that we would be out of iraq by 2013, the end of the 1st term. only bill richardson, gravel and kucinich would guarantee an immediate withdrawl. now richardson is out of the race and kucinich and gravel have always been afterthoughts. nothing changes....just the faces and names.
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Jan 10, 2008 22:38:39 GMT -4
What is the big deal with Ron Paul? I honestly don't know much about him, and I don't hear his name mentioned nearly as much as the other candidates, but I'm definitely curious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2008 23:04:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 10, 2008 23:05:26 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Jan 10, 2008 23:14:10 GMT -4
Those attacks have been out for over a decade. There is nothing sudden or breaking about that news.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 10, 2008 23:29:58 GMT -4
Those attacks have been out for over a decade. There is nothing sudden or breaking about that news. the newsletters have been out for a decade. the news and analysis of the newsletters is certainly sudden and breaking since it is currently creating a firestorm in the media, but paul will be lucky to register 10% in any state on super tuesday, so i suppose it's all moot.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Jan 10, 2008 23:31:46 GMT -4
Those attacks have been out for over a decade. There is nothing sudden or breaking about that news. the newsletters have been out for a decade. the news and analysis of the newsletters is certainly sudden and breaking since it is currently creating a firestorm in the media, but paul will be lucky to register 10% in any state on super tuesday, so i suppose it's all moot. A firestorm? Please. Welcome to 1996. Paul's newsletters, which date back to 1978 and has been variously titled "Ron Paul's Freedom Report", "Ron Paul Political Report", "The Ron Paul Survival Report", and "The Ron Paul Investment Letter",[93] first became an issue in his 1996 run for Congress against Charles Morris. Morris ran numerous attack ads about Paul's newsletters, which included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[94][95] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[96][97] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".[98][99] In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by an unnamed ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[100] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[35] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own,"[10] but added that Paul's "response to the accusations was not transparent."[10]
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 10, 2008 23:42:22 GMT -4
guess you don't keep up with the news. that's cool i guess. of course in 2001, paul wasn't running for president.
just in the past 3 days, andrew sullivan, CNN, the new york times and about 10 other websites have covered this, so there's probably something there.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jan 10, 2008 23:45:23 GMT -4
Caught a little of the debate tonight on Fox.
I came in just in time to see Paul being laughed at and then Romney throw a mehish joke his way.
I still think Paul looks and sounds like a leprochan, but that may just be me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2008 23:47:11 GMT -4
guess you don't keep up with the news. that's cool i guess. of course in 2001, paul wasn't running for president. You're the one that doesn't keep up with the news if you think any of that is "breaking."
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Jan 10, 2008 23:48:57 GMT -4
guess you don't keep up with the news. that's cool i guess. of course in 2001, paul wasn't running for president. So the same tired attack that was used ten years ago while Paul was running for Congress has resurfaced in 2008 and you are citing it as breaking news? Just checking...
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Jan 10, 2008 23:52:02 GMT -4
Caught a little of the debate tonight on Fox. I came in just in time to see Paul being laughed at and then Romney throw a mehish joke his way. I still think Paul looks and sounds like a leprochan, but that may just be me. If Paul looked like Romney and had the speaking skills of Obama he would win in a landslide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2008 23:55:05 GMT -4
Caught a little of the debate tonight on Fox. I came in just in time to see Paul being laughed at and then Romney throw a mehish joke his way. I still think Paul looks and sounds like a leprochan, but that may just be me. You're right, he does kinda look and sound leprechaunish.
|
|