NYIntensity wrote:
K. I think Mike and I can trade jabs without getting butt hurt, but I've got to remember the "Greater good"
It's just my job to police this powder keg. So put out your smokes.
http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/ |
|
| Mitt http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7033 |
Page 3 of 4 |
| Author: | YankeeInRaleigh [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
What the cow, can there not be political discussion without 'you're mommas so fat', and 'I would like fries with that'? Grow the plants in the garden. Edit: editted for unsportsmanlike conduct
|
|
| Author: | Squanto [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
NYIntensity wrote: You're a boo boo head if you think that under Ron Paul the debt would go up. I'm not a mod anymore, so I could care less what you do, but this shit doesn't exactly help move the discussion forward. Edit: Editted for quoting a play on which a penalty was called
|
|
| Author: | ironyisadeadscene [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
NYIntensity wrote: You're a pickle faced momma's boy if you think that under Ron Paul the debt would go up. yeah. hes not a real candidate. no offense, but elvis has a better chance of doing a comeback tour than ron paul being the republican nominee. so the debts gonna go up. so i vote with my political beliefs and not give the debt a second thought. Edit: also editted for quoting from a play on which a penalty was called
|
|
| Author: | BlueandYellow [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
ironyisadeadscene wrote: NYIntensity wrote: You're a coming up with replacements for swear words is hard if you think that under Ron Paul the debt would go up. yeah. hes not a real candidate. no offense, but elvis has a better chance of doing a comeback tour than ron paul being the republican nominee. In my opinion he's not a "real" candidate because he's not perceived as one. You turn on your TV, even before Romney and Santorum and Gingrich (Gingrich not so much) were doing so well and you never heard Paul's name. It's hard to win when nobody talks about you. |
|
| Author: | ironyisadeadscene [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
BlueandYellow wrote: ironyisadeadscene wrote: NYIntensity wrote: You're a giant sized shake and side of ranch if you think that under Ron Paul the debt would go up. yeah. hes not a real candidate. no offense, but elvis has a better chance of doing a comeback tour than ron paul being the republican nominee. In my opinion he's not a "real" candidate because he's not perceived as one. You turn on your TV, even before Romney and Santorum and Gingrich (Gingrich not so much) were doing so well and you never heard Paul's name. It's hard to win when nobody talks about you. i certainly wont argue with that. bottom line is he wont win the republican nominee and i wont vote for him. |
|
| Author: | Squanto [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
Paul has some legitimately good ideas. He also has some bat shit crazy ones. Same can be said for most all the candidates to some extent. The problem is the media coverage is the game. Paul just lays his ideas out there, and wants people to judge them on the merits. I personally respect him for that, but that doesn't get your airtime in the media establishment, and makes it hard to get votes. Plus this is the Republican primary. The only ways to move forward are: - Outspend your opponents by massive amounts. - Promise to return to Christian values. - Say Muslim once in a while. |
|
| Author: | NYIntensity [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
I don't think the gold standard is feasible. Other than that, I don't think he's got one idea that isn't solid. |
|
| Author: | Squanto [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
He loses me when he plays the Constitutionalist card , yet wants to amend said document to make his personal beliefs part of it. His energy polices are also questionable. When he blames high oil prices on domestic production regulations, he's clearly mislead. |
|
| Author: | NYIntensity [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
I haven't seen his desire to amend the Constitution anywhere...can you point me to it? See that, irony? I'm asking someone to dilute my kool aid. |
|
| Author: | Squanto [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
NYIntensity wrote: I haven't seen his desire to amend the Constitution anywhere...can you point me to it? See that, irony? I'm asking someone to dilute my kool aid. He wants to end birthright citizenship, which is clearly defined in the 14th Amendment as any person born on US soil. This has been reinforced in Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Any law passed to deny birthright citizenship would be nullified, so the only way to do that is by amendment. |
|
| Author: | NYIntensity [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
I'm reading that as a way to combat "anchor babies". I agree with you on that, any person born here should be a citizen. |
|
| Author: | Displaced Fan [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
Jimminey Fracking Cricket. Can't a guy curl up under a blanket with the flu for one stinking night without you guys going Lord of the Flies in here? All participating infractioners are asked to please take a chill pill and refrain from being douchie. I have editted said douchie posts. |
|
| Author: | NYIntensity [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
K. I think Mike and I can trade jabs without getting butt hurt, but I've got to remember the "Greater good" |
|
| Author: | Displaced Fan [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
NYIntensity wrote: K. I think Mike and I can trade jabs without getting butt hurt, but I've got to remember the "Greater good" It's just my job to police this powder keg. So put out your smokes.
|
|
| Author: | NYIntensity [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
Displaced Fan wrote: NYIntensity wrote: K. I think Mike and I can trade jabs without getting butt hurt, but I've got to remember the "Greater good" It's just my job to police this powder keg. So put out your smokes. heh, don't know how you got shafted with this forum |
|
| Author: | Squanto [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
NYIntensity wrote: I'm reading that as a way to combat "anchor babies". I agree with you on that, any person born here should be a citizen. The term 'anchor baby' is pretty derogatory. It's not like aliens can come across the border, drop out a kid, then gain citizenship. A child can't sponsor their parents for citizenship until 18 or 21, I can't remember which. Of all the issues around immigration, this is not a major one in reality. Great talking point though. However, it illustrates the dichotomy in his statements. If someone tells me they're a strict consititionalist blah blah blah, then wants to do things that would require amendment to accomplish, it's hard to take that person seriously. |
|
| Author: | NYIntensity [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
What would you call having a child on US soil in any effort to at least make deportation more difficult? How do you figure "anchor baby" is derogatory? Maybe it actually SHOULD be, because when you talk down on something, most good people tend to not do that thing. I hadn't heard about the amendment, so that's a dent in the armor for sure, but what do YOU think this country needs to do to fix its economy? You rip apart all of the politicians pretty equally, what is your gut telling you? |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
Squanto wrote: The term 'anchor baby' is pretty derogatory. It's not like aliens can come across the border, drop out a kid, then gain citizenship. No, but it makes things WAY more complicated and difficult when it comes to deporting or processing those parents otherwise. It's defacto amnesty the way it's enforced. Because it's only enforced if one of the parents is a god damn felon. Quote: Of all the issues around immigration, this is not a major one in reality. Great talking point though. It may not seem like a problem to you, but for parts of the country, like where I live, it's a major fucking problem. If my daughter wasn't in a charter school she'd be in LAUSD in a class twice the size (30+ kids) of which a full third of the kids are ESL. Maybe that's me being selfish, but something is wrong with that picture. |
|
| Author: | Squanto [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
I'm not trying to imply that it's not an issue at all, sorry if it came out that way. I'm saying that I don't think it rises to the level of Constitutional amendment to rectify it, and even if it does, the guy making the statement is running on a platform for following the Constitution, so stumping for something that required the document to be changed is a bit hypocritical. That's the larger point I'm trying to make, not an immigration debate. |
|
| Author: | Crosscheck [ Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Mitt |
egh, if someone claims to be a strict constitutionalist, I consider that to mean the original document and the bill of rights. I don't think anyone is going to bat for the 18th amendment any more etc. |
|
| Page 3 of 4 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|