Originally Posted by ijusluvit

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.

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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.

*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.

Originally Posted by djplong

*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/patri...natevote.shtml

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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/2011/0..._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...t-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/2011/0..._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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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)

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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...

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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

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

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