Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee? - Page 415 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee?

...

Page 415 of 865

First

215 315 365 395 405 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 425 435 465 515 615

Last

Page 415 of 865

First

215 315 365 395 405 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 425 435 465 515 615

Last

11-15-2011 , 11:17 PM

#10351

The 13th 4postle

banned

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 11,244

I think a lot of people can actually imagine Newt Gingrich as POTUS. That's why he's surging right now.

11-15-2011 , 11:20 PM

#10352

chucky

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,998

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErikTheDread

During the same period, Strom Thurmond was 4th in line for the Presidency. Your point?

A Thurmond inauguration would have allowed Strom to put on his Grey uniform one more time.

11-15-2011 , 11:31 PM

#10353

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

Quote:

Originally Posted by chucky

A Thurmond inauguration would have allowed Strom to put on his Grey uniform one more time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

Third in line today is... *checks wikipedia* ...Daniel Inouye?

John Boehner. Inouye's fourth.

11-15-2011 , 11:36 PM

#10354

snagglepuss

banned

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,269

pretty awesome back and forth between the "omg obama is ruining this country!!" crowd and the "woah you ignorant racist right-wing nutjobs, dont you realize how awful all those republicans are!" gang

meanwhile

11-15-2011 , 11:43 PM

#10355

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Which is why Paul will never get elected. He is out of touch with the electorate.

11-15-2011 , 11:43 PM

#10356

Bdidd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 11,104

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedManPlus

People forget that for 4 years (1995-99)...
As Speaker of the House...
Newt was 3rd in line to the Presidency.

It was:

Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Newt Gingrich

So what?

People don't forget that newt is a huge moron who mercilessly trolled Clinton while conducting his own nefarious affair.

Thread needs more bachmann.

11-15-2011 , 11:45 PM

#10357

punter11235

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 8,210

Pretty accurate if by "YES" you mean "under some circumstances" and by "NO" you mean "never, no matter what".
Sums up candidates pretty well and is the very reason I consider Ron Paul to be the worst possible president of them all.

11-15-2011 , 11:50 PM

#10358

snagglepuss

banned

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,269

Quote:

Originally Posted by punter11235

thats certainly one way to look at it i guess? :/

11-15-2011 , 11:59 PM

#10359

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 37,795

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErikTheDread

wpJohn Boehner. Inouye's fourth.

Third in line of succession.

1 Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D)
2 Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Daniel Inouye (D)

11-16-2011 , 12:01 AM

#10360

tannenj

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,393

lolol.

federal reserve: "under some circumstances." patriot act: "under some circumstances." irs: "under some circumstances." imf: "under some circumstances." nafta: "under some circumstances."

wtf does "under some circumstances" even mean when applied to these things?

i will now stab my throat w/ a fork.

11-16-2011 , 12:08 AM

#10361

snagglepuss

banned

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,269

hey sometimes you just gotta torture people yo!

11-16-2011 , 12:18 AM

#10362

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

i must be a bad rp supporter because i dont believe the federal reserve is where aids, cancer, and voldemort all came from

Something like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tannenj

I like how the other Republican candidates are such fans of foreign aid now. I doubt the maker of that graphic could speak competently to half of the boxes on that grid. But of course, that's not the point. The issues don't really matter.

(The real chuckle comes with asking why Paul opposes NAFTA, though.)

11-16-2011 , 12:20 AM

#10363

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

I don't know the details of NAFTA, but there's obviously got to be something majorly wrong with it for Ron Paul to oppose it, as he supports free trade.

11-16-2011 , 12:24 AM

#10364

snagglepuss

banned

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,269

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

I doubt the maker of that graphic could speak competently to half of the boxes on that grid. But of course, that's not the point. The issues don't really matter.

(The real chuckle comes with asking why Paul opposes NAFTA, though.)

so bitter and dismissive and pathetic.

"the issues dont matter" get a job buddy

11-16-2011 , 12:28 AM

#10365

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

I don't know the details of NAFTA, but there's obviously got to be something majorly wrong with it for Ron Paul to oppose it, as he supports free trade.

This is a typical response, but it is sort of depressing, right?

What if I told you that the graphic was wrong, and that actually Ron Paul supported NAFTA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

But of course, that's not the point. The issues don't really matter.

Well, at least I saw it coming...

11-16-2011 , 12:29 AM

#10366

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by snagglepuss

so bitter and dismissive and pathetic.

"the issues dont matter" get a job buddy

Did you even read LirvA's reply?

But, OK, we can do it your way too: NAFTA. Ron Paul. Go.

(I'm not sure what "get a job buddy" means in this context, but I'm sure that's pretty hilarious too, so you can elaborate on both points.)

11-16-2011 , 12:31 AM

#10367

AKSpartan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 9,931

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

I love how every anti-libertarian argument on this forums boils down to "I doubt this person is intelligent / you're so foolish to doubt the 'experts'." Just pure emotional reaction.

NAFTA:

Quote:

http://blog.mises.org/7889/free-trad...de-agreements/

Free trade requires no treaties. All that is needed is to remove (unilaterally or multilaterally) artificial barriers to trade: England did this in the mid-nineteenth century, Hong Kong in the mid-twentieth century. In 1789, the Constitution of the United States need just fifty-four words to establish free trade among the states. NAFTA, the “free” trade agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States has two thousand pages, nine hundred of which are tariff rates.

...

Trade agreements are filled with “exception.” A favor is protection from foreign competition for those who wield political influence through vested interests, typically the producers of essential items. Ironically, man government efforts allow producers of basic consumer items to charge high princes, redistribution income upwards: from the poorest members of society to the privileged few. Rather than free trade these agreements create a regime of managed trade and, not least, lots of expensive useless wealth-consuming jobs for bureaucrats.

To supervise and control trade between countries makes as much economic sense as supervising and controlling trade between the states or provinces of the same country.

...

11-16-2011 , 12:31 AM

#10368

snagglepuss

banned

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,269

Quote:

Originally Posted by sholar

NAFTA. Ron Paul. Go

Quote:

Originally Posted by ron paul

If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.

quote from discussing cafta, but the idea is the same

11-16-2011 , 12:31 AM

#10369

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

I don't know the details of NAFTA, but there's obviously got to be something majorly wrong with it for Ron Paul to oppose it, as he supports free trade.

Mostly cos he is crazy. One of the reasons he is against NAFTA is he sees it as part of creating a North American Union with America, Canada and Mexico.

11-16-2011 , 12:34 AM

#10370

snagglepuss

banned

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,269

err wait scholar, do you consider NAFTA a real free-trade agreement, or a preferential trade agreement?

11-16-2011 , 12:37 AM

#10371

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

Well that's not an unrealistic concern. We entered the Libya deal under U.N. resolution, so why shouldn't we worry about international bodies dictating what we do and try to prevent it?

AKSpartan's post makes it look like NAFTA is all about creating or maintaining tariffs. Tariffs are quite anti free trade.

11-16-2011 , 12:38 AM

#10372

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

Third in line of succession.

1 Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D)
2 Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Daniel Inouye (D)

Yeah, I'm being incorrectly nitty in the way that Redman said that newt had been third in line.

11-16-2011 , 12:43 AM

#10373

AKSpartan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 9,931

Quote:

Originally Posted by tannenj

I'll tell you what it means. It means this is how we save America.

If I were president, I we would clearly need to reel in these programs, but I would not be so radical as to eradicate them. Who knows what will happen if people are "free" to do things without bureaucrats and pages of rules. And if your answer to the question "Should we keep this program / Is this expenditure worth making?" is "No" instead "I don't know, maybe, kinda sorta I'll have to ask my advisors?", then you are simplifying the issue and have a elementary view of reality.

I would improve upon the current situation sevenfold by restricting each violation to a day of the week as follows:

Money printing Monday
Terrorist hunting Tuesday
Where are the drugs? Wednesday
Phone tap Thursday
**** WE'RE BROKE! Friday
Shakedown Saturday
Save the corporations! Sunday

Write me in guys.

11-16-2011 , 12:45 AM

#10374

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKSpartan

I love how every anti-libertarian argument on this forums boils down to "I doubt this person is intelligent / you're so foolish to doubt the 'experts'." Just pure emotional reaction.

I didn't make an "anti-libertarian" argument. Maybe you should try reading posts before you reply to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snagglepuss

err wait scholar, do you consider NAFTA a real free-trade agreement, or a preferential trade agreement?

Since there are no "real free-trade agreement" in existence right now, I'm not sure what mileage you're expecting to get out of this question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

AKSpartan's post makes it look like NAFTA is all about creating or maintaining tariffs. Tariffs are quite anti free trade.

So...do you think trade is more or less free as a result of NAFTA?

Besides, you're all wrong. The reason we oppose NAFTA is because it's another step towards abolishing our national sovereignty. Of course, you all knew that already, right?