Page 27 of 46 FirstFirst ... 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 37 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 460
  1. #261
    Grandmaster public servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mars Hill, IN vacation capital of the world
    Posts
    8,069

  2. #262
    Plinker Mkidwe01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greenwood
    Posts
    105
    If standing up for what I believe and calling out those who I believe do not understand how the work works, makes me a bully than so be it. But I am not surprised by that comment. Some people are afraid of a debate and want to bad mouth those that disagree.

    I do have to give Rambone props, he stands up for what he believes in, even if I don't agree

  3. #263
    Grandmaster hornadylnl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    19,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Mkidwe01 View Post
    If standing up for what I believe and calling out those who I believe do not understand how the work works, makes me a bully than so be it. But I am not surprised by that comment. Some people are afraid of a debate and want to bad mouth those that disagree.

    I do have to give Rambone props, he stands up for what he believes in, even if I don't agree
    I have zero problem with debate. If someone posts something that isn't true, counter with the facts and let the readers decide. Accusing people of living in their mom's basement, being anarchists, etc is not debate but bullying in an attempt to silence posters.

  4. #264
    Grandmaster mrjarrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hamilton County
    Posts
    15,409
    Back on the OP....we have a piece by Indiana's own, Radley Balko taking a look at one of the major reasons I will never cast a vote for Gingrich. His stance on the war on drugs is abominable and I have seen nothing to make me think that he's changed his stance on it. Executing people for having as little as 2 ounces of pot on them? Escalating a lost "war"? This stance alone, and it's intended and unintended consequences makes him unelectable. He wants to start a real war within the boundaries of this country, and if he thinks it wouldn't end in shooting he's insane. He's not what we need at this time, or any other time. He's a long time supporter of big government and has no intention of making things better.

    Newt Gingrich, Drug Warrior Extraordinaire | The Agitator

  5. #265
    Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,851
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjarrell View Post
    Back on the OP....we have a piece by Indiana's own, Radley Balko taking a look at one of the major reasons I will never cast a vote for Gingrich. His stance on the war on drugs is abominable and I have seen nothing to make me think that he's changed his stance on it. Executing people for having as little as 2 ounces of pot on them? Escalating a lost "war"? This stance alone, and it's intended and unintended consequences makes him unelectable. He wants to start a real war within the boundaries of this country, and if he thinks it wouldn't end in shooting he's insane. He's not what we need at this time, or any other time. He's a long time supporter of big government and has no intention of making things better.

    Newt Gingrich, Drug Warrior Extraordinaire | The Agitator
    Depends on what the goal is. If you want a candidate that is truly anti-big government, there is only one viable choice. But if you want Obama gone in Jan 2013, Newt is not a bad pick because of his communication skills. He's very good in debates and would completely ragdoll Obama in debates.

    I don't think Newt is unelectable based on his positions. Mitt Romney doesn't even have positions and he has been a "frontrunner" for a long time. Newt is probably the smoothest of the bunch. Most voters are not going to dig into his record like you and others have.

  6. #266
    Grandmaster mrjarrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hamilton County
    Posts
    15,409
    Quote Originally Posted by gunowner930 View Post
    Depends on what the goal is. If you want a candidate that is truly anti-big government, there is only one viable choice. But if you want Obama gone in Jan 2013, Newt is not a bad pick because of his communication skills. He's very good in debates and would completely ragdoll Obama in debates.

    I don't think Newt is unelectable based on his positions. Mitt Romney doesn't even have positions and he has been a "frontrunner" for a long time. Newt is probably the smoothest of the bunch. Most voters are not going to dig into his record like you and others have.
    Replacing Obama with Gingrich is a non starter. We'd certainly be worse off with a Gingrich presidency, if what we want is more freedom, smaller government and an end to government interference in our lives. I'd much rather see a flip flopper like Romney than Gingrich. Hell, I'd rather see a blithering idiot like Cain or Perry, than Gingrich. Gingrich would do more damage to us than Obama ever could.

  7. #267
    Expert 24Carat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Newburgh
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjarrell View Post
    Gingrich would do more damage to us than Obama ever could.
    That comment thoroughly excludes the author from any further serious consideration.

    On the one hand you have an intact populace to temper any imaginary attempts to mold the "One World Government" scenario.

    On the other you have a society steeped in anarchy and being fully focused on mere survival.

    The comparison is sheer idiocy or simple sensationalism.
    When Jefferson said that all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, he was stating a philosophical premise upon which government in this country was to stand. Because of a combination of ignorance, stupidity, thirst for power, and pathetic government run indoctrination centers (aka public schools) most people don't have the slightest clue of what this premise means much less what a philosophical premise in general is and what it has to do with logic.




  8. #268
    Grandmaster mrjarrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hamilton County
    Posts
    15,409
    Quote Originally Posted by 24Carat View Post
    That comment thoroughly excludes the author from any further serious consideration.

    On the one hand you have an intact populace to temper any imaginary attempts to mold the "One World Government" scenario.

    On the other you have a society steeped in anarchy and being fully focused on mere survival.

    The comparison is sheer idiocy or simple sensationalism.
    Not sure how you go to where you're at, but you're not making much sense. Gingrich is a big government lover and, given the chance to implement his war on drugs vision, would start a war on cops. We have much bigger problems facing us and he would make things infinitely worse. If you choose not to look at his words and "principles" and take the "anyone but Obama" stance, then you're putting your head in the sand. Better 4 more years of gridlock.

  9. #269
    Expert 24Carat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Newburgh
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjarrell View Post
    Not sure how you go to where you're at, but you're not making much sense. Gingrich is a big government lover and, given the chance to implement his war on drugs vision, would start a war on cops. We have much bigger problems facing us and he would make things infinitely worse. If you choose not to look at his words and "principles" and take the "anyone but Obama" stance, then you're putting your head in the sand. Better 4 more years of gridlock.
    Yep, gridlock works well until manipulation by inciting anarchy (where have we seen this?? Hmmmm) opens the door for Marshall Law (the President is the Supreme Military Leader) or use of a different legal construct, such as a "state of emergency" and two of the three branches of government are removed from the equation.
    When Jefferson said that all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, he was stating a philosophical premise upon which government in this country was to stand. Because of a combination of ignorance, stupidity, thirst for power, and pathetic government run indoctrination centers (aka public schools) most people don't have the slightest clue of what this premise means much less what a philosophical premise in general is and what it has to do with logic.




  10. #270
    Expert spec4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NWI
    Posts
    1,746
    Regarding mrjarrel's comment on gridlock; we don't have gridlock. I define gridlock as nothing getting done. Unfortunately, Obama and his gang are getting things done to the detriment of all of us. Consider the stonewalling on "Fast and Furious", or the blocking of the pipeline from Canada, or the endless push to grow govt. I read that in his first two years, federal employee increased by 140,000. In the latest issue of American Rifleman, there is an article by LaPierre regarding Obama's desire to disarm us, interesting and scary read. IMO, while each GOP candidate has their shortcomings, these shortcomings pale in the spectre of Obama getting four more years. Folks, what will we have left?

Page 27 of 46 FirstFirst ... 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 37 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •