Which Republican candidate will you vote for (Private poll)

[quietmike]

Nope, I remember Wright and I remember Obama's denials that he was racist.

Well he denied it...it's all settled then.
Odd how you won't give the same trust to the white, republican candidates, especially considering the history of the respective parties.

[ooitzoo]

Ron Paul 2012 baby!!

[timcsaw]

Ron Paul 2012 baby!!

Will you still vote for a Romney or Gingrich if they get the nomination instead of Paul?

By the way, I like the Jefferson quote in your sig line!

[ttoney83]

Will you still vote for a Romney or Gingrich if they get the nomination instead of Paul?

By the way, I like the Jefferson quote in your sig line!

Given what I'm learning about Gingrich now I will be hard pressed to make that decision. Again, Gingrich and Romney are merely LESS insane choices to make, but to support either of these globalists is still insane. Gingrich has a record of handing over U.S. sovereignty to supra national governing bodies. We are so totally screwed it is beyond belief, I'm afraid the globalists have victory virtually locked up. Nothing short of a reorganization of our monetary system, including a dumping of all of the illegitimate gambling losses, will save us and the world from introduction of a global reserve currency controlled by a world central bank.

[timcsaw]

Given what I'm learning about Gingrich now I will be hard pressed to make that decision. Again, Gingrich and Romney are merely LESS insane choices to make, but to support either of these globalists is still insane. Gingrich has a record of handing over U.S. sovereignty to supra national governing bodies. We are so totally screwed it is beyond belief, I'm afraid the globalists have victory virtually locked up. Nothing short of a reorganization of our monetary system, including a dumping of all of the illegitimate gambling losses, will save us and the world from introduction of a global reserve currency controlled by a world central bank.

I honestly hope you are wrong... but I wouldn't place a big bet against you.

My real hope lies in taking both houses of Congress (especially if Obama's MONEY wins the Presidency)... If one of these "lesser of two evils" wins, my hope is that full control of both houses, with a right "leaning" SCOTUS (and appointment to replace ol' whats-her-face) will hold the reigns of the Executive branch.

Wow... thinking about it further...what a disgusting hope to be left with huh? "Hoping" that a bunch of politicians in congress can get us back on track... At this point... it's the only "hope" I can find (and I consider myself a "The glass is FULL" kinda' guy (it's half full of water, and the other half is full of air so the glass is always full of something. ))

[JohnTheTexican]

I think you might be referring to Hamdi, not Padilla? Hamdi was a US citizen "arrested" in Afghanistan, and Padilla was a US citizen arrested on US soil (Chicago).

From Wiki;

On May 8, 2002, Padilla, a U.S. citizen, flew from Pakistan to Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. As he stepped off the plane, Padilla was apprehended by federal agents executing a material witness warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in connection with its grand jury investigation into the September 11th terrorist attacks.

Yaser Esam Hamdi is a citizen of the United States who was born in Louisiana in 1980 and moved to Saudi Arabia as a child.[1] In 2001, Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan by the Afghan Northern Alliance and then turned over to U.S. military authorities during the U.S. invasion.[2] He was classified as an enemy combatant by the U.S. armed forces and detained in connection with ongoing hostilities.[3] Hamdi's father claimed that Hamdi had entered Afghanistan to do relief work and ended up being trapped in Afghanistan once the U.S. invasion began.[4]

Silly me. Right you are.

But in other news, it seems that once they snatch a US Citizen in the US as a terrorism suspect, they're free to torture without having to worry about getting sued.

Appeals court rejects Padilla torture lawsuit

[Scott Free]

By the way, I like the Jefferson quote in your sig line!

Tim is refering to ooitzoo's signature line (supposedly by Jefferson.) "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

There is no citation provided. Also, the syntax is wrong, both for the time and for Jefferson in particular. I know without even looking it up, that the words above are not Jefferson's. Google Books is an excellent tool for proving or disproving supposed internet quotes. I just don't have time right now.

I am not disagreeing with the sentiments of the quote. I am only saying that the words are not Jefferson's.

[Codger_64]

Funny thng about the government... you can only sue them if they agree to let you do it.

[BlackKnight86]

Tim is refering to ooitzoo's signature line (supposedly by Jefferson.) "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

There is no citation provided. Also, the syntax is wrong, both for the time and for Jefferson in particular. I know without even looking it up, that the words above are not Jefferson's. Google Books is an excellent tool for proving or disproving supposed internet quotes. I just don't have time right now.

I am not disagreeing with the sentiments of the quote. I am only saying that the words are not Jefferson's.

They're Gerald Ford's.

Address to a Joint Session of the Congress, August 12, 1974

Whether we like it or not, the American wage earner and the American housewife are a lot better economists than most economists care to admit. They know that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/in...#axzz1kQ5qZDI4

[OliverH]

They're Gerald Ford's.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/in...#axzz1kQ5qZDI4

Well done by both you and Scott. It's interesting to see how the internet really demonstrates how irresistible is the temptation to attribute sayings/thoughts to well-known people in order to invest the words with a certain gravitas or authority. It's gone on forever, too. Hence the now generally accepted inauthenticity of some of the Pauline epistles, and many other works from antiquity. I remember a philosophy professor saying that some work of Plato's was very late--so late, he continued, that most scholars thought it was probably written after he died.

Anyway, it behooves us to keep in mind the wise words of one of our greatest presidents: "The problem with quotes on the internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity."--Abraham Lincoln

[jdm61]

It's bad enough that we have had to deal with Presidents with names like Millard, Lyndon, Rutherford, Dwight, Zachary, Ulysees, Woodrow and Barack, but now we are looking at the possibility of a nominee named Newt? Surely we have crossed some line here.

[Triton]

Nope, I remember Wright and I remember Obama's denials that he was racist. It appears to me, since he's been elected, that he's proved he isn't racist;

Yep, that Holder justice department now there's a shining example. I wonder if he can drum up another "teachable moment" too.

Obama certainly hasn't engaged in the race-baiting exhibited by many of the republican candidates for president nor, unlike the republican party with blacks and hispanics, has he attempted to put into place a policy that would have the effect of disenfranchising white voters0.

No, its merely suggested that every time someone opposes him they are a racist.

I certainly don't want another corrupt incompetent like Clarence Thomas or an "originalist" kook like Antonin Scalia.

No, you want something far more incompetent and less interested in the Constitution like the two that the obama has already installed on the court.

[UffDa]

As I watched a bit of the news about Newt, my main thought is, "Is this the best we can do? Why does the Republican party continue to shoot itself in the foot?"

I hate to say it, but if these are the best and brightest the GOP has, we're screwed. Unless Obama makes a huge blunder, we're going to have him for 4 more years and
another 4 trillion dollars.

That's just my opinion. What do I know?

[lepto]

Yep, that Holder justice department now there's a shining example. I wonder if he can drum up another "teachable moment" too.

You disagree with my earlier characterization of Obama?

No, its merely suggested that every time someone opposes him they are a racist.

Just like some republicans always blame the liberal media elites every time something appears in the press they don't like. I don't see Obama routinely calling foul because of racism.

No, you want something far more incompetent and less interested in the Constitution like the two that the obama has already installed on the court.

It remains to be seen how competent/incompetent Obama's picks turn out. It is interesting that they, apparently, participate in court proceedings unlike Clarence the Clam. It is to their great credit that neither appears to adhere to Scalia's simple-minded Originalist philosophy.

[timcsaw]

I don't see Obama routinely calling foul because of racism.

Obama HIMSELF "routinely" calling foul because of racism? Not much (beer summit anyone)... he has "lackeys" who do that for him so that he can maintain "plausible deniability". Nothing new...

[Triton]

It is interesting that they, apparently, participate in court proceedings unlike Clarence the Clam. It is to their great credit that neither appears to adhere to Scalia's simple-minded Originalist philosophy.

Neither one of them or both combined have the judicial record that Thomas and Scalia have.

[OldPhysics]

You disagree with my earlier characterization of Obama?



Just like some republicans always blame the liberal media elites every time something appears in the press they don't like. I don't see Obama routinely calling foul because of racism.



It remains to be seen how competent/incompetent Obama's picks turn out. It is interesting that they, apparently, participate in court proceedings unlike Clarence the Clam. It is to their great credit that neither appears to adhere to Scalia's simple-minded Originalist philosophy.

Simple minded? Have you ... met ... any of these people? It is possible to do so.

I've met Scalia. He's anything but simple-minded.

[lepto]

Neither one of them or both combined have the judicial record that Thomas and Scalia have.

That's what recommends them both.

Simple minded? Have you ... met ... any of these people? It is possible to do so.

I've met Scalia. He's anything but simple-minded.

I'll grant you Scalia is glib, however, I must admit I've never met either he or Thomas. Do you know Scalia well?

[Triton]

That's what recommends them both.

It's not a shock that liberals prefer a record of incompetence.

[lepto]

It's not a shock that liberals prefer a record of incompetence.

It's not incompetence we prefer in our justices but sane legal reasoning absent the taint of corruption carried by Messrs. Thomas and Scalia.