Say Goodnight Rick

[Guest]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is staying in the presidential race despite a fifth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.


Won't someone put him out of his embarrassing misery.

[Guest]

What is your opinion of the other Rick...Santorum?

[Guest]

Remember, it's all about the money. Perry still has a boatload and feels sure he can buy lots of new friends soon!

[Guest]

With Bachmann out and Newt in free fall, perhaps Perry believes the only conservative alternative to Romney is him and Santorum now.

That would give him an incentive to keep going.

[Guest]

i met rick santorum in sept and i think he is a fine, sincere, humble man...i am very happy that he did so well in iowa, as he worked very hard, and as everyone says he could never win the nomination. i think he could win if enough conservatives rally around him, but with all the other possibilities it just keeps us divided...eventually the right person will float to the top of the barrel. remember, romney got 25% of the iowa vote, but that means that 75% of republicans would prefer a conservative...ARE YOU LISTENING, REPUBLICAN LEADERS????

[Guest]

i met rick santorum in sept and i think he is a fine, sincere, humble man...i am very happy that he did so well in iowa, as he worked very hard, and as everyone says he could never win the nomination. i think he could win if enough conservatives rally around him, but with all the other possibilities it just keeps us divided...eventually the right person will float to the top of the barrel. remember, romney got 25% of the iowa vote, but that means that 75% of republicans would prefer a conservative...ARE YOU LISTENING, REPUBLICAN LEADERS????

What do you mean by "as everyone says he could never win the nomination"?
I think he did rather well in Iowa.
"Chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, Matt Strawn, announced Romney got 30,015 votes and Santorum received 30,007 votes out of a record turnout of 122,255." He lost to Romney by only 8 votes?!?!?

What do you mean "with all the other possibilities" it just keeps us divided?

[Guest]

Perry is going to wait for the South Carolina primary and that's all there is to it. If he can catch fire there it changes everything. That's his plan and I wouldn't count him out of it yet.

[Guest]

What is your opinion of the other Rick...Santorum?

Still researching. Iowa returns took me by surprise with him. I can say, I don't know any reason why I would not vote for him. I just have not done a good looky seey on him. I bet we know a lot more about him in the next few days. He looks presidential. I am now waiting for one of the bottom feeders to take the high road by dropping out AND endorsing a possible winner.

[Guest]

What is your opinion of the other Rick...Santorum?

His facial expression always makes me think he has gas or something. :laugh:

[Guest]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is staying in the presidential race despite a fifth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.


Won't someone put him out of his embarrassing misery.

Oops!!! :laugh:

[Guest]

Still researching. Iowa returns took me by surprise with him. I can say, I don't know any reason why I would not vote for him. I just have not done a good looky seey on him. I bet we know a lot more about him in the next few days. He looks presidential. I am now waiting for one of the bottom feeders to take the high road by dropping out AND endorsing a possible winner.


I must admit, this is something which drives me crazy! What does it mean to "look presidential"?

I'm not criticizing any one person, just those who use appearance as their main, or only criterion for choosing a candidate. Unfortunately, there are millions of these folks.

Thank goodness this doesn't apply to any of the looky seey posters here.

[Guest]

I must admit, this is something which drives me crazy! What does it mean to "look presidential"?

I'm not criticizing any one person, just those who use appearance as their main, or only criterion for choosing a candidate. Unfortunately, there are millions of these folks.

Thank goodness this doesn't apply to any of the looky seey posters here.

"looks presidential"?; I guess you can go back to the J.F.K./Nixon era and their debate to have your answer on that. Don't underestimate the power of appearance. Obama had it; the appearance. In practice it bit the country on the butt.

[Guest]

I must admit, this is something which drives me crazy! What does it mean to "look presidential"?

I'm not criticizing any one person, just those who use appearance as their main, or only criterion for choosing a candidate. Unfortunately, there are millions of these folks.

Thank goodness this doesn't apply to any of the looky seey posters here.

That is one criteria out of many that I use. Abe even looked presidential, so you see it is a way one carries him or herself. You are a very fortunate person if that is something that drives you crazy. Trust me when I say, there are more serious mater's that drives the majority of us crazy.

[Guest]

i met rick santorum in sept and i think he is a fine, sincere, humble man...i am very happy that he did so well in iowa, as he worked very hard, and as everyone says he could never win the nomination. i think he could win if enough conservatives rally around him, but with all the other possibilities it just keeps us divided...eventually the right person will float to the top of the barrel. remember, romney got 25% of the iowa vote, but that means that 75% of republicans would prefer a conservative...ARE YOU LISTENING, REPUBLICAN LEADERS????

chachacha: I normally agree with your point of view However, your "eventually the right person will float to the top"... stops me in my tracks.

I use to beleieve that cream alway floated to the top but then how do you explain Obama ascendency to president???::sad:

[Guest]

That is one criteria out of many that I use. Abe even looked presidential, so you see it is a way one carries him or herself. You are a very fortunate person if that is something that drives you crazy. Trust me when I say, there are more serious mater's that drives the majority of us crazy.

Don't get me wrong, there are qualities which make someone "presidential". They have to do with intelligence, integrity, courage, etc., not 'looks'. What bothers me is that millions of voters make up their minds about a candidate based almost entirely on things like charm, physical beauty or handsomeness, smile, catchy words, etc. Thanks to the media, fueled by the super PACs for example, many unqualified candidates have been elected as a result.

[Guest]

Don't get me wrong, there are qualities which make someone "presidential". They have to do with intelligence, integrity, courage, etc., not 'looks'. What bothers me is that millions of voters make up their minds about a candidate based almost entirely on things like charm, physical beauty or handsomeness, smile, catchy words, etc. Thanks to the media, fueled by the super PACs for example, many unqualified candidates have been elected as a result.

That should not be, but I'm sure your right about a lot of folks. I once had an argument with my mother in law. I asked why are you voting for XXXXX. Her reply was well Jim, Deceased husband always voted Democrat. I almost lost it. She did not even know who was running on the ticket.

[Guest]

Seems to me that most of the uber-conservative posters on this forum would rather cut off their right arm than to vote Democrat. Your mother-in-law had the same idea - vote for the ticket and not for the person - just because they would never vote for the other party.

[Guest]

Seems to me that most of the uber-conservative posters on this forum would rather cut off their right arm than to vote Democrat. Your mother-in-law had the same idea - vote for the ticket and not for the person - just because they would never vote for the other party.

No Democrat worth voting for at this point in history. There is no such thing as a true Democrat candidate. The Democrat Party is dead on arrival. All people who call themselves Democrat now follow a Party that bows before the altar of big government socialism at any cost; and our Constitution be damned.

[Guest]

Richie, the same holds true for the GOP. They'll just trample over different parts of the Constitution. It's VERY depressing at times. That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul on Tuesday. I may not agree with all of his positions, but his general direction of wanting to get us back to the Constitution is as good a start as I can find.

...and as he said in an interview a couple of campaigns ago, if you find him going too far, you can always vote him out when you've gotten as much Libertarianism as you want.

[Guest]

Richie, the same holds true for the GOP. They'll just trample over different parts of the Constitution. It's VERY depressing at times. That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul on Tuesday. I may not agree with all of his positions, but his general direction of wanting to get us back to the Constitution is as good a start as I can find.

...and as he said in an interview a couple of campaigns ago, if you find him going too far, you can always vote him out when you've gotten as much Libertarianism as you want.

Comparing the recent events of the Democrats like Obama's power grab, which amounted to a despotic trashing of Congressional Rules in a complete denunciation of our Constitution, to Republican views that can be debated, is naive in my opinion. It's trying to establish a parity where there is none.

Ron Paul sounds good when he speaks about domestic issues; it's when he speaks of foreign policy and the U.S.'s place in the world that I do a double take and wonder if the man has any common sense.

Ron Paul's "isolationism" is not going to be workable in this increasingly volatile world. Ron Paul as Treasury Secretary could be a wonderful thing, but that's about it on a national level where I would trust him.

[Guest]

*Nothing* that the democrats have done, in *my* opinion, compares to the trampling and shredding of our rights done when the USAPATRIOT Act (it's full name) was passed.

I should amend that to mean no SINGLE action. We've been being bled from a thousand papercuts from both parties for a long time.

As I said, Paul's a good start. I wouldn't go all the way with him on his isolationism, but I would certainly support a few pullbacks. I'm tired of being the world cop. I'm tired of having people hate us everywhere. I'm tired of being the DoD for a lot of foreign countries so that they can take that money and invest it in their domestic priorities. I'm tired of the boogeymen.

We seem to be on our way to our next Iraq when it comes to Iran. Remember - M.A.D. worked when it was us against the USSR. AhmaNutJob *has* to know that there won't BE an Iran if they get a nuke and deploy it against Israel. There probably won't be a Mecca shortly thereafter - just for good measure.

[Guest]

*Nothing* that the democrats have done, in *my* opinion, compares to the trampling and shredding of our rights done when the USAPATRIOT Act (it's full name) was passed.

I should amend that to mean no SINGLE action. We've been being bled from a thousand papercuts from both parties for a long time.

Was the "USAPatriot" act an executive order instituted unilaterally by a Republican president?

Was it a bill passed by a total Republican vote over a desperate Democrat minority?

.......or, was it a bill passed by a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in accordance to the provisions of our Constitution.

hmmmmmmmmm?

You must love the "apples and oranges" arguments.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

[Guest]

Oh the Democrats went along with it.

As usual, rushing things, I should have been more explicit.

I kinda give Congress a pass on the initial PATRIOT Act. We were reacting to something horrible. It happens.

The recent reauthorization, however, was different. Whereas in 2001, only one Senator voted against it, now, 10 Senators voted "Nay". All 10 were Democrats. (Ok, 9 Democrats and a supposedly Independent - Jeffords from VT but he caucused as a Democrat if memory serves)

Don't get me wrong - they're guilty as well. But not a single Republican stood up for our civil liberties in the Senate. *NOT ONE*.

In the House, the vote was 275-144 in favor with only 27 Republicans voting against it (Rand Paul of Kentucky was leading the charge in that group). That means 117 Democrats voting against it.

[Guest]

Oh the Democrats went along with it.

As usual, rushing things, I should have been more explicit.

I kinda give Congress a pass on the initial PATRIOT Act. We were reacting to something horrible. It happens.

The recent reauthorization, however, was different. Whereas in 2001, only one Senator voted against it, now, 10 Senators voted "Nay". All 10 were Democrats. (Ok, 9 Democrats and a supposedly Independent - Jeffords from VT but he caucused as a Democrat if memory serves)

Don't get me wrong - they're guilty as well. But not a single Republican stood up for our civil liberties in the Senate. *NOT ONE*.

In the House, the vote was 275-144 in favor with only 27 Republicans voting against it (Rand Paul of Kentucky was leading the charge in that group). That means 117 Democrats voting against it.

You seem to forget in your rush to demonize Republicans, and THAT is your agenda......these are the Presidents remarks at the signing of this act, and by the way our commander in chief is a Democrat...

""It's an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat," Obama said Friday after a meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkoz"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html

Also need to point out that Rand Pau... was the "fly in the ointment" in holding this up and he is a Republican.

A few other items you neglected to mention...

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) led opposition on the Senate floor Monday, arguing that the provisions allow the government to peer too deeply into Americans' private lives. He questioned the wisdom of trading privacy for national security."

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended the provisions as needed by law enforcement to investigate terrorism suspects — especially after the killing of Osama bin Laden, when threats may increase.

"This is a time when our vigilance must be heightened," Feinstein said."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/23/nation/la-na-patriot-act-20110524

You just seemed to skip over the actual facts, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion and should be expressing it, but making it a party thing as you have done is wrong.

I ask again...is not Sen Paul a Republican since you said...."But not a single Republican stood up for our civil liberties in the Senate. *NOT ONE*.

"Congress bumped up against the deadline mainly because of the stubborn resistance from a single senator, Republican freshman Rand Paul of Kentucky, who saw the terrorist-hunting powers as an abuse of privacy rights. Paul held up the final vote for several days while he demanded a chance to change the bill to diminish the government's ability to monitor individual actions."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html

Again dont get me wrong...you have every right to have your opinion and state it loudly and clearly but your post very very clearly was meant to condemn one party and that is what is wrong with this country right now...the NEED to do that.

PS...it seems to me if I stopped at my quotes I could make a case about those Democrats however that would be using a few select quotes to distort what happened...perhaps it may have have been.....and I am quoting RICHIE on this....."or, was it a bill passed by a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in accordance to the provisions of our Constitution.

[Guest]

Oh the Democrats went along with it.

As usual, rushing things, I should have been more explicit.

I kinda give Congress a pass on the initial PATRIOT Act. We were reacting to something horrible. It happens.

The recent reauthorization, however, was different. Whereas in 2001, only one Senator voted against it, now, 10 Senators voted "Nay". All 10 were Democrats. (Ok, 9 Democrats and a supposedly Independent - Jeffords from VT but he caucused as a Democrat if memory serves)

Don't get me wrong - they're guilty as well. But not a single Republican stood up for our civil liberties in the Senate. *NOT ONE*.

In the House, the vote was 275-144 in favor with only 27 Republicans voting against it (Rand Paul of Kentucky was leading the charge in that group). That means 117 Democrats voting against it.

None of this explains your point of placing this on the head of Republicans as a counterbalance for your argument. The last time it went to a vote it was headed by the very Democrat President that you're trying to devise some sort of moral equivalence with this issue to defend.

I'm not getting it. Maybe you need a different example. The Patriot Act, although you may not like it, does not promote your argument.

(postscript: I just read Bucco's detailed rebuttal above after this response, and it's much more detailed and informative than my opinion here, but I'll leave it here anyway)

[Guest]

Perry is going to wait for the South Carolina primary and that's all there is to it. If he can catch fire there it changes everything. That's his plan and I wouldn't count him out of it yet.Nope, Perry hasn't been officially knocked out yet.

7...8...9...

[Guest]

Nope, Perry hasn't been officially knocked out yet.

7...8...9...

Glad you took the time to post. The point being.............