(02-14-2011 09:52 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Says the person that voted for an idiot who is 100% completely opposite of Paul.

Scorched Earth. Let them eat cake. If forced to chose between Obama and McCain I'm going with Obama. The GOP must be punished at ALL COSTS if they try to put another Dubya in office.

(02-14-2011 09:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Scorched Earth. Let them eat cake. If forced to chose between Obama and McCain I'm going with Obama. The GOP must be punished at ALL COSTS if they try to put another Dubya in office.

But you're OK with rewarding the Dems by putting another W in office?

(02-14-2011 12:50 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 09:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Scorched Earth. Let them eat cake. If forced to chose between Obama and McCain I'm going with Obama. The GOP must be punished at ALL COSTS if they try to put another Dubya in office.

But you're OK with rewarding the Dems by putting another W in office?

:pwnt:

Wait......

Torch are you saying Obama is another W? This board has schizophrenia.

If Obama is another W, then why does SOAF hate him.

(02-14-2011 12:50 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 09:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Scorched Earth. Let them eat cake. If forced to chose between Obama and McCain I'm going with Obama. The GOP must be punished at ALL COSTS if they try to put another Dubya in office.

But you're OK with rewarding the Dems by putting another W in office?

Republicans put blinders on when there is an R in the oval office. When there is a D suddenly they begin to wail and cry. At least but putting a Dubya with a D, there will be widespread anger and contempt instead of looking the other way.

(02-14-2011 12:50 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 09:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Scorched Earth. Let them eat cake. If forced to chose between Obama and McCain I'm going with Obama. The GOP must be punished at ALL COSTS if they try to put another Dubya in office.

But you're OK with rewarding the Dems by putting another W in office?

I think you grossly overestimate the influence GTS and his ilk have on the electorial process. Paultards couldn't even get RP an single win in the primaries and he carried 35 delegates into the convention. The next on the list was Romney with 271. Just for some perspective.

Unless this coming election gets down to 2000 election year numbers, they will see no impact this time around either.

(02-13-2011 09:37 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Obama was only possible because of Dubya,

Being black had nothing to do with it? Being endorsed by high profile celebrities who knew nothing about him had nothing to do with it? Having people believe they wouldn't have to make their mortgage payments had nothing to do with it? He promised to give more people more stuff than his opponent did and that didn't have anything to do with it? Having a good chunk of America collectively losing all common sense had nothing to do with it?

Be honest, you miss W, dontcha?

(02-13-2011 09:37 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-13-2011 07:30 PM)blah Wrote:  Yeah because letting Obama get elected worked out so well for the country.

I didn't say he had to support the front-runner. I said he should support someone else (and I don't mean Ralph Nader). Someone who could actually win, because everyone in here except you seems to understand that Ron Paul is not electable unless of course it is an online poll.

Obama was only possible because of Dubya, who, might I add, was "highly electable", "mainstream", and took "uncontroversial positions". See how that worked out for ya?

Remind me again who started this thread.....

You might be willing to let the government assrape you for 8 years to make a point, but that just seems really stupid to me. As much as I didn't like W, I would take him any day over Obama.

And BTW you can't have your cake and eat it too, so quit bitchin' about how much in taxes you have to pay if you want to be a good martyr....

(02-14-2011 07:33 PM)blah Wrote:  You might be willing to let the government assrape you for 8 years to make a point, but that just seems really stupid to me. As much as I didn't like W, I would take him any day over Obama.

And BTW you can't have your cake and eat it too, so quit bitchin' about how much in taxes you have to pay if you want to be a good martyr....

Bush only increased taxes while in office. Nice try.

Oh wait, you say, what about those famous Bush tax cuts the GOP just recently fought over?

A tax cut without a spending cut of at least equal size is NOT a tax cut. It is a deferred loan -- a tax on future generations -- at VERY HIGH interest.

(02-14-2011 08:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 07:33 PM)blah Wrote:  You might be willing to let the government assrape you for 8 years to make a point, but that just seems really stupid to me. As much as I didn't like W, I would take him any day over Obama.

And BTW you can't have your cake and eat it too, so quit bitchin' about how much in taxes you have to pay if you want to be a good martyr....

Bush only increased taxes while in office. Nice try.

Oh wait, you say, what about those famous Bush tax cuts the GOP just recently fought over?

A tax cut without a spending cut of at least equal size is NOT a tax cut. It is a deferred loan -- a tax on future generations -- at VERY HIGH interest.

You have a reply to everything....Keep drinking the Kool-Aid....

Again, I state....W=Bad President. Obama=Worse.

You trying to justify this = ridiculous.

How many good presidents would you say we have had in the last 100 years? I count 1. Based on your idiocy I should vote for the worst candidate with the hope that everyone gets pissed and then elects someone good at a later point?

The hilarious part to me is that even having Hitler as president couldn't get Ron Paul elected president.

(02-14-2011 09:39 PM)blah Wrote:  Again, I state....W=Bad President. Obama=Worse.

You trying to justify this = ridiculous.

How many good presidents would you say we have had in the last 100 years? I count 1. Based on your idiocy I should vote for the worst candidate with the hope that everyone gets pissed and then elects someone good at a later point?

The hilarious part to me is that even having Hitler as president couldn't get Ron Paul elected president.

McCain = More W. Obama = Worse, but with the benefit of potentially purging the Republican Party to get, if NOTHING ELSE, real fiscal conservatism in a candidate.

Your Hitler analogy only works if the Republicans are running Stalin.

(02-14-2011 09:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 09:39 PM)blah Wrote:  Again, I state....W=Bad President. Obama=Worse.

You trying to justify this = ridiculous.

How many good presidents would you say we have had in the last 100 years? I count 1. Based on your idiocy I should vote for the worst candidate with the hope that everyone gets pissed and then elects someone good at a later point?

The hilarious part to me is that even having Hitler as president couldn't get Ron Paul elected president.

McCain = More W. Obama = Worse, but with the benefit of potentially purging the Republican Party to get, if NOTHING ELSE, real fiscal conservatism in a candidate.

Your Hitler analogy only works if the Republicans are running Stalin.

But while you are crossing your fingers for a R[evol]ution, the country sinks further in debt and Obama passes health care legislation that (if the history of social welfare programs continues) may never be repealed.

No worries though....it is all done for the future of the country.

The next W is Palin.

(02-15-2011 10:05 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  The next W is Obama.

FIFY.

Republicans gave the people no choice. McCain or Obama. McCain was just too old. I mean how are you going to make decisions about the future when you aren't going be here?

(02-15-2011 02:12 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Republicans gave the people no choice. McCain or Obama. McCain was just too old. I mean how are you going to make decisions about the future when you aren't going be here?

Wow, you know exactly when people will die? That's amazing.

72 (McCain's age in '08) is old, yes. But there are plenty of people who have run for and won high national office at that age or older.

Ronald Reagan was re-elected president of the US at age 73.
Charles DeGaulle was re-elected president of France (a defined 7-year term in those days) at age 75.
Winston Churchill was elected prime minister of the UK (a potential 5-year term) one-month-shy of 77.
Konrad Adenauer was elected prime minister of West Germany at age 73, and was re-elected a few times before finally resigning at age 87.

I will always wonder why John McCain did not run for president in 1996. I think he would have won the nomination easily against the other candidates (Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, etc.), and I think he would have beaten Clinton head-to-head in the General Election, not by a landslide but with a clear margin. McCain was 60 years old for that election cycle, and when he didn't run, I just kind of assumed it was because he didn't really have the ambition to run for president. (Which is fine: most people don't.) But having passed up such a great chance, it's peculiar that he fought to so hard in 2000 and 2008 when the odds were much, MUCH longer against him.