- Dec 8, 2002
- 531
- 0
- 0
The more I hear this guy speak the more I get pumped up about him for a possible presidency run in 08. I really am starting to like this guy, does anyone else think he may have a shot?
Originally posted by: EatSpam
My three main issues are:
1. Less illegal immigration
2. More fiscal conservancy
3. No more war
We'll have to see how he stacks up.
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
My three main issues are:
1. Less illegal immigration
2. More fiscal conservancy
3. No more war
We'll have to see how he stacks up.
I agree
I agree
I agree
However on the third point, I would imagine we agree in different means. I dont want war but I feel takin ga stand is necessary, now that we're in Iraq pulling out is NOT the answer. We do need to get tougher with N Korea and Iran.
I wonder what he would do with taxes....I'm going to look up what he did as govenor.
Originally posted by: EatSpam
My three main issues are:
1. Less illegal immigration
2. More fiscal conservancy
3. No more war
We'll have to see how he stacks up.
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
My three main issues are:
1. Less illegal immigration
2. More fiscal conservancy
3. No more war
We'll have to see how he stacks up.
I agree
I agree
I agree
However on the third point, I would imagine we agree in different means. I dont want war but I feel takin ga stand is necessary, now that we're in Iraq pulling out is NOT the answer. We do need to get tougher with N Korea and Iran.
I wonder what he would do with taxes....I'm going to look up what he did as govenor.
I really only support the use of our military for defensive use. I would like to see troops deployed on the Southern border, to stop the ongoing invasion.
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
My three main issues are:
1. Less illegal immigration
2. More fiscal conservancy
3. No more war
We'll have to see how he stacks up.
I agree
I agree
I agree
However on the third point, I would imagine we agree in different means. I dont want war but I feel takin ga stand is necessary, now that we're in Iraq pulling out is NOT the answer. We do need to get tougher with N Korea and Iran.
I wonder what he would do with taxes....I'm going to look up what he did as govenor.
I really only support the use of our military for defensive use. I would like to see troops deployed on the Southern border, to stop the ongoing invasion.
So do you consider yourself a pacifist? Just curious since thats what everyone said prior to WWI and WWII. WWII bit us in the butt hardcore because we chose to pretend things weren't going on.
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Basically yes. I think using our military to meddle in the affairs of other countries is counterproductive and only breeds resentment. I think political and economic sanctions are the best ways to approach foreign issues. If a problem touches our soil, then I might entertain a military option, but only to defend our soil. I don't support sending our military halfway around the world. That's what covert operation type things are for, if absolutely necessary.
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Just... for the love of all that's good... I don't want Hillary Clinton as the democratic nominee.
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Just... for the love of all that's good... I don't want Hillary Clinton as the democratic nominee.
Originally posted by: raildogg
Hillary would be my choice. she is bright, great communicator, has a master politician and master political mind as her husband, she knows whats it like living in the White House and dealing with pressure, she has had a wonderful career and has been a good New York state senator. it is time for her to move up
she is the most recognized democrat by far. women love her. that alone should be enough reason for her to get the nomination. plus she can raise the most money out of any democrat. she would be the best hope for the democrat party. i like her a lot and would vote for her even though i never vote. she is amazing. go Hitlery
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Basically yes. I think using our military to meddle in the affairs of other countries is counterproductive and only breeds resentment. I think political and economic sanctions are the best ways to approach foreign issues. If a problem touches our soil, then I might entertain a military option, but only to defend our soil. I don't support sending our military halfway around the world. That's what covert operation type things are for, if absolutely necessary.
Ok, then I ask you this...
Do you think we did the right thing by staying out of WWII until we were attacked?
Why do you favor political and economic sanctions when they only hurt the people who are already being oppressed? Leadership/dicators of other countries will not suffer the consequences of economic sanctions only the citizens will.
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Basically yes. I think using our military to meddle in the affairs of other countries is counterproductive and only breeds resentment. I think political and economic sanctions are the best ways to approach foreign issues. If a problem touches our soil, then I might entertain a military option, but only to defend our soil. I don't support sending our military halfway around the world. That's what covert operation type things are for, if absolutely necessary.
Ok, then I ask you this...
Do you think we did the right thing by staying out of WWII until we were attacked?
Why do you favor political and economic sanctions when they only hurt the people who are already being oppressed? Leadership/dicators of other countries will not suffer the consequences of economic sanctions only the citizens will.
Absolutely. There was no need for us to meddle in Europe and Asia's problem until it became our problem.
Political and economic sanctions must be made so that they affect leadership more than the people in the country. I would agree that political/economic sanctions that only hurt the populace aren't useful.
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Basically yes. I think using our military to meddle in the affairs of other countries is counterproductive and only breeds resentment. I think political and economic sanctions are the best ways to approach foreign issues. If a problem touches our soil, then I might entertain a military option, but only to defend our soil. I don't support sending our military halfway around the world. That's what covert operation type things are for, if absolutely necessary.
Ok, then I ask you this...
Do you think we did the right thing by staying out of WWII until we were attacked?
Why do you favor political and economic sanctions when they only hurt the people who are already being oppressed? Leadership/dicators of other countries will not suffer the consequences of economic sanctions only the citizens will.
Absolutely. There was no need for us to meddle in Europe and Asia's problem until it became our problem.
Political and economic sanctions must be made so that they affect leadership more than the people in the country. I would agree that political/economic sanctions that only hurt the populace aren't useful.
Well at least your intellectually honest...care to explain whyyouthink hitler deserved to be ignored by us? if he had beaten england, there would be a good chance we would be speaking german today
Originally posted by: Vic
Bayh looks promising as a moderate centrist, fiscal conservative, and popular leader from a traditional "Red State." Almost another Clinton in fact, and so he might have a shot in 2008 (probably the Dems only shot even, as Hillary cannot be taken seriously). But his records as a gun control nut and litigation lawyer panderer are not promising.