For Those Of You Who Enjoy Real Political Debates

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
You're from Texas... tell us YOUR perspective of Perry. Or, do you just say it would suck because you are not of the same political party as he is?

I am not at ALL favorably disposed to Perry. besides the things I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think he's got some religious baggage. I DO NOT want politics and religion mixed, and things I've read about Perry lead me to believe he's been "evangelizing" and I don't want an evangelist in the White House.

LOL - this would actually be one reason I MIGHT vote for him! It would be nice to have a President who actually "walks the walk" and not just "talks the talk" when it comes to getting the right wing religious vote.

Barbara
 
You're from Texas... tell us YOUR perspective of Perry. Or, do you just say it would suck because you are not of the same political party as he is?

I am not at ALL favorably disposed to Perry. besides the things I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think he's got some religious baggage. I DO NOT want politics and religion mixed, and things I've read about Perry lead me to believe he's been "evangelizing" and I don't want an evangelist in the White House.

I posted when Jill asked me the reasons if you look.

As a "younger" crowd (I'm 24), all I hear are older people argue and get feeling hurt. Like last Christmas, and my great aunt is still not talking to my grandparents because the P word came up.

IMO there isn't a reason to pick a party. Go for the one I personally like. I voted for Obama(my reasons then was because he sounds like he was going to change a lot) well I'm NOT voting for him this time around. I fall more on the demo side, because I think Clinton was great.
 
For those of you who watched last night, what did you think?

My "pick" for the debate "winner" is not who I feel I'll vote for (I'll explain later if interest dictates). I thought it was the best debate I ever saw... but the down side is I was so "wound up" after watching that I was up so late with those wheels in my head turning.

So, what did you folks think of the debate???

july4_7.gif
 
I didn't get a chance to watch it - no cable. I'm hoping it will be available on-line in its entirety at some point.

Barbara
 
I hope it will be available online, Barbara. It "should" be, but you know how should doesn't always mean will. I will be on the look out for the video footage and will share the link(s) if/when I find them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope it will be available online, Barbara. It "should" be, but you know how should doesn't always mean will. I will be on the look out for the video footage and will share the link(s) if/when I find them.

Thank you!
 
I recorded it so I could scan through it later... surprised?

Just a few quick thoughts on my way out to the barn....

Mitt Romney came out on top. He looked and sounded a bit over-rehearsed but Presidential. None of the others really went after him - he was head and shoulders above everyone else IMO.

Pawlenty & Bachmann going after each other did not really help either one of them but was entertaining. Bachmann said that she wished the country had defaulted? That will not go over well with may who were watching. Her fundamentalist side is going to work against her. Will she be able to separate church and state? I am not sure.

Newt was Newt. Stick a fork in him - he's done. OF COURSE he is going to get "gotcha" questions - his whole campaign is a mess and a joke and he contradicts himself constantly.

Santorum is also done - I have Republican friends in Pennsylvania who cannot stand the man and were glad to be rid of him.

Huntsman looked nervous IMO. His only hope is to come out as a bit of a moderate because he cannot get any further right than Bachmann - she has that corner all sewn up.

Maybe the next debate will have Perry and Palin in it - and things will fire up a lot more.
 
Ron Paul... I actually wrote his name in during the last election. If ever there were a candidate who feels we should follow the letter of the Constitution, it's Ron Paul. Again, he doesn't have a chance.

Hi Wee,

Your willingness to write him in is to be applauded. However, concerning your assertion that he doesn't have a chance, here is why you rightfully feel this way along with the rest of us. Can it be overcome? Don't know. One would think that things had become transparent enough and the economic destruction so complete that he "should" be a shoe-in. He was by far the front runner the last time around yet just didn't seem to be able to capitalize on it. Below will explain why. One must remember that neither party wants him. The Rep's. don't want him because he would spell and end to perpetual war, bad money policy and a return to Constitutional law. The Dems don't want him because he would put an end to "revenue" (tax and theft policy) and a return to Constitutional law.

BOTH parties HATE the Constitution. Below show admission right from the mouth of the folk doing this.

Despite Ron Paul’s overwhelming success in Saturday’s Ames straw poll, finishing second to Michele Bachmann by less than two hundred votes, in an astounding video establishment media talking heads admit what we’ve been highlighting from the very start – that there is a deliberate policy to sideline, ignore and discredit Paul’s campaign.

WATCH VIDEO

After pointing out that Ron Paul only lost to Michele Bachmann by a tiny percentage (and that after accusations that Bachmann’s campaign attempted to rig the result by buying 4,000 votes), and that the Ames result was virtually a “tie for first,” Politico’s Roger Simon said the reason for him being ignored was that “the media doesn’t believe he has a hoot in hells chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we’re gonna ignore him.”

CNN host Howard Kurtz even admits that, “We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race”.

The bizarre aspect of this clip is that Simon admits the Ames straw poll is a key indicator of the race and was “as good as a win” for Ron Paul, then completely contradicts himself by saying Paul has no chance of winning. This dichotomy illustrates how the media-generated perception of Paul’s campaign as futile has no basis in reality – it is nothing more than a hoax designed to manipulate the American people.

Indeed, it is the establishment’s fear that Ron Paul could build the kind of momentum for a win that drives the deliberate policy to ignore his campaign. By manufacturing the hoax that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, the establishment hopes their rhetoric will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Look at it another way. It’s almost a given that former Federal Reserve insider Herman Cain has no chance of winning the Republican candidacy, and the polls prove it, but you won’t hear the mainstream media endlessly obsessing about the futility of his campaign as they do with Ron Paul, even as Paul’s poll results illustrate how he is a strong front runner.

The establishment denigrates Paul’s campaign not because they think he can’t win, but because they’re scared hemight win. That’s why they’ve made it their job to try and derail his momentum at every turn. It’s their job to manipulate the American public into thinking they’re wasting their vote if they support Paul because he has no chance of winning, when the opposite is true, he has every chance of winning, if only he was given an equal platform with the other candidates.

Politico’s efforts to pretend Ron Paul doesn’t exist were brazenly apparent in the first incarnation of their headline regarding the Ames straw poll result, which was entitled, Michele Bachmann wins Ames Straw Poll, Tim Pawlenty gets third (the headline was later changed).

Despite the fact that Ron Paul beat Pawlenty, who subsequently announced he was dropping out of the racealtogether, by over 2,300 votes, and Paul trailed Bachmann by a mere 152 votes, it was Pawlenty and not Paul who made the headline of the article.

No wonder the headline was later amended, as the You Tuber in the video below documents. This was a transparent and embarrasing effort to ignore Ron Paul’s existence altogether, a tactic we’ll be seeing plenty more of over the next 12 months.
 
I didn't get a chance to watch it - no cable. I'm hoping it will be available on-line in its entirety at some point.

Barbara
Barbara -- Here is a link. It's broken down into segments, and I'm not sure the entire debate is available, but I like that you can look at the video thumbnails and read the short description of what each segment features from the debate. There's on "big" video picture at the top of the page, but page down and you will see lots of thumbnails with the descriptions. I thought the debate was really good. Enjoy, Jill

http://video.foxnews...ylist_id=165456
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank You so Much Carriage for posting about Ron Paul. I am very slowly, very carefully, wading into the Political pool and off course it is very easy to get overwhelmed. I am AMAZED at the stances he takes. He has some very strong opinions and doesnt just use some crowd motivating gimmics to make people agree and cheer for him. He explains the logic behind his views and relates them all back to the constitution. While some of his opinions may not be super popular, they are all based on individual liberty and the idea that you can't limit individual rights to appease a group. That is what makes democracy fail and why we are a republic.

Here is a link to one website that I found that really helped me ALOT in reading about the candidates in a relatively straight forword understandable format. . .

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm
 
And now James has me reading about the candidates too. I am finding that I also like Ron Paul on alot of issues and the things I might not agree with aren't issues with the running of the United States. I am reading about the others too but so far he has been my pick. I am taking this seriously this time around.
 
... I am taking this seriously this time around.
I bet a lot of people are taking it more seriously this time around. Maybe that's just wishful thinking? I've always taken it seriously -- even way back when I voted for Perot
blush.gif
...
default_biggrin.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok before I say anything, was your comment a joke or were you serious and just being snarky.
 
Ok before I say anything, was your comment a joke or were you serious and just being snarky.
I'm very serious in that I think a lot of people are taking the election and their vote much more seriously this time around
default_yes.gif


As to any snarkiness, I wasn't aiming in that direction BUT I was making fun of myself and my own vote way back in 1992
ok.gif
 
Barbara -- Here is a link. It's broken down into segments, and I'm not sure the entire debate is available, but I like that you can look at the video thumbnails and read the short description of what each segment features from the debate. There's on "big" video picture at the top of the page, but page down and you will see lots of thumbnails with the descriptions. I thought the debate was really good. Enjoy, Jill

http://video.foxnews...ylist_id=165456
Thank you, Jill! I had seen those and was able to watch some of them. I'll get back over there to watch the rest.
 
I bet a lot of people are taking it more seriously this time around. Maybe that's just wishful thinking? I've always taken it seriously -- even way back when I voted for Perot
blush.gif
...
default_biggrin.png
Geeze, Jill..... you and I must be twins, separated at birth. *I* voted for Perot, too!
 
Ron Paul... I actually wrote his name in during the last election. If ever there were a candidate who feels we should follow the letter of the Constitution, it's Ron Paul. Again, he doesn't have a chance.

Hi Wee,

Your willingness to write him in is to be applauded. However, concerning your assertion that he doesn't have a chance, here is why you rightfully feel this way along with the rest of us. Can it be overcome? Don't know. One would think that things had become transparent enough and the economic destruction so complete that he "should" be a shoe-in. He was by far the front runner the last time around yet just didn't seem to be able to capitalize on it. Below will explain why. One must remember that neither party wants him.
Thanks for posting that info! And I agree completely that neither party wants him. And WHY???? Because he's not in the pocket of liberal left wingers or conservative big business interests. He's strictly a Constitutional "cash and carry" kind of guy. And neither party wants him because of that very reason. He owes no one favors. He's not courting special interest groups. He simply uses the Constitution as a guideline for government, and that is something neither party does any longer.

Even Fox news, the conservative stronghold, seems to ignore him, or if they do mention him it's never in a favorable light. They don't really degrade him, but they treat him like someone's mentally deranged brother that people like to keep in the basement, and are embarrassed when he climbs up the stairs and begins talking to the neighbors.

If everyone who voted had enough brains to really listen to what he's saying and elect him, things would really change in this country. What saddens me is that his age, (and he LOOKS his age), is going against him as well. And some people will look at him next to Romney, who seems full of vigor and has the advantage of fewer years, and want this guy to lead them.

Fox News seems to be backing Bachman. Maybe that's just my take on it, but she's interviewed more than any other candidate on their news programs, and so far her entire platform seems to be based on two things: "Get Obama out of the White House and repeal Obamacare." I don't hear a single concrete thing from her. Truthfully, she's beginning to remind me of Nancy Pelosi! (UGH)!

The United States is so far removed from it's constitutional beginnings as to be laughable. And it seems to me that Ron Paul is the only person who actually recognizes this and wants us to get back to a lawful form of government.

The media hypes up the threat of a nuclear Iran, and only Ron Paul sees that little nation for what it is. And if they want to blow Israel off the map, that's Israel's problem and shouldn't be ours. Yes, we need to support out allies, but my feeling has always been that if we had NOT been such staunch allies of Israel we would have never become the target of Muslim extremists. They hate us because we support Israel.

And the other thing which bothers me about the national debt is that we hear ONLY about cuts to Medicare and Social Security. There is so much fraud in government, so much waste, and payouts to different agencies which do exactly the same thing. There are probably thousands and thousands of goverment workers milking the public teat and not doing a thing. If the government would simply "clean house" and get rid of all the useless staff, we'd save billions in salaries, health insurance, and retirement payouts to them. And they need to simply stop replacing government workers who retire! Perhaps that will mean that a few more people will have to do a little extra work. Well, they should be thrilled they even have a job in this economy, and do it willingly in order to stay employed.

I am also getting sick and tired of the Tea Party being so maligned by the liberal press. The members of the Tea Party are AMERICANS! Yet they are treated with the same disrespect as people like Bobby Seale, Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden and the rest of the "Chicago Eight" who were on trial after the tumultuous 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. Members of the Tea Party are not terrorists, rioters, or anarchists. They are simply americans who are fed up with the corruption and malfeasance in our capital and want our legislators accountable to the people of this country.

Geeze.... I have to get to bed.
 
Thank You so Much Carriage for posting about Ron Paul. I am very slowly, very carefully, wading into the Political pool and off course it is very easy to get overwhelmed. I am AMAZED at the stances he takes. He has some very strong opinions and doesnt just use some crowd motivating gimmics to make people agree and cheer for him. He explains the logic behind his views and relates them all back to the constitution. While some of his opinions may not be super popular, they are all based on individual liberty and the idea that you can't limit individual rights to appease a group. That is what makes democracy fail and why we are a republic.

I am glad that you are taking a look. Recon is everything. Yes a stark difference between him and the banker sponsored chaff, is that he IS genuine, speaks the truth and appears to be devoid of electioneering guile.

The gem of your note and rightfully pointed out by you is individual Liberty and all of its facets including individual responsibility. This is especially touching as so many firmly reject individual Liberty. Again, the great experiment was about self government. Can a "man" govern himself in a societal setting? The answer was yes and can be yes again if "we" would commit ourselves to Liberty in its truest sense and do so with abandon.

I was speaking with the neighborhood neocon the other day. He was trying to get me involved in the political season. I politely declined.... I told him that I seem to get along better and make more headway these days with good democrats than I do republicans. He stated "Well, I can't believe that". I replied, You just proved my point and why.

Good for you James. We may not swap spit on everything, but on the critical issue's specific to Liberty and Constitutional rule of law, I'll betcha we're closer than R's and D's beside our names should indicate. Now if we could just cure the republican schitzophrenia associated with Dr. Paul, we would be making some more progress.

I know where the disagreements are with republicans and Dr. Paul. Every one of those disagreements, and I DO mean EVERY one, has republicans on the wrong side of the Constitution. I continue to ask those republicans "What part of the Constitution do you disagree with?" Ya know I never seem to get an answer....
 
Thanks for posting that info! And I agree completely that neither party wants him. And WHY???? Because he's not in the pocket of liberal left wingers or conservative big business interests. He's strictly a Constitutional "cash and carry" kind of guy. And neither party wants him because of that very reason. He owes no one favors. He's not courting special interest groups. He simply uses the Constitution as a guideline for government, and that is something neither party does any longer.

Good points ALL Miss Sandy.

Fox backing Bachman had better be an indicator as to future events. While its early, there is a whiff of a Mcain type scenario developing again. Just sayin..

Yes his age will be used against him. That is why the choice of a running mate is so critical. Another critical issue would be his security. Knowing the duplicitous nature of Security personnel within this machine, I offered Dr. Paul my services personally for the period of his term knowing that he would have to be the most protected and least traveled President of all time. No I would not trust his safety to secret service personnel. They did such a swell job with Kennedy and Reagan.... Also remember the president takes with him an army of over 1500 people that he can place in key positions. This would be key in that he would have to move VERY quickly and simultaneously on numerous fronts to be effective. Just killing the bank alone would place our nation and people in GREAT danger not to mention Dr Paul. But it must be done and all stolen assets returned to the people from whence they were stolen. You don't just audit the fed. You seize IT and all of "it's assets" and throw its principals in jail after conviction at trial. I would rather face the danger of ticking off the "city" than live as a slave. Without the U.S. the "city" is short its biggest war-making asset. Focusing on internal security would then be paramount as so many assets to the banksters are in place and would need to be removed from positions so that they could not cause further mischief and destruction of Constitutional recovery efforts.

As an old D.I. used to say most annoyingly, C'mon all they can do is kill you, what do you care if they eat you too. While the "encouragement" was never much appreciated at the time, it DID provide clarity of purpose. Americans were made for the fight. Those at Liberty can always expect the fight designed to steal your Liberty. "It's what wolves do."
 
I actually like a President to have a strong faith. But, I know that won't be the way many others would feel.
I certainly have no objection to a president having strong faith, as long as he keeps it out of the Oval Office. I think many people of great faith also have a well-developed conscience and a strong moral code. But so do atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. But we don't want any of them in the White House, now do we?

There is no religious stipulation for the presidency, just as there is no religious requirement in the Constitution. If we allow ANYONE of ANY FAITH to make public policy based on his faith, then we lose our liberty.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top