toldailytopic: What do you think of Michele Bachmann?

[olsparky]

Sounds like a perfect definition to me. And thanks for admitting that you too, are a sexist. Maybe you'd prefer the 1st century AD?

So, you think it is just a coincidence all or virtually every society in history has been patriarchal?

 

[olsparky]

You might want to look up "prohibition". Pretty much destroys any argument you can muster about making something illegal.

First, prohibition worked and dramatically decreased alcohol consumption:

Prohibition was a solitary effort by this country while the rest of the world was essentially "wet." However, most drugs are illegal throughout much of the world. This makes enforcement much easier. History shows that prohibition curbed alcohol abuse. Alcohol use declined by 30 to 50 percent; deaths from cirrhosis of the liver fell from 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 to 10.7 in 1929; and admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis fell from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. Mark Moore, Harvard professor of criminal justice, wrote: "The real lesson of prohibition is that society can, indeed, make a dent in the consumption of drugs through laws."

Secondly, legalizing something that has been illegal, will ALWAYS increase the amount of that activity.

 

[olsparky]

Lots of countries pose a threat to us now that already have a nuke. We are not the policemen of the world. It is stupid hype put out by the military industrial complex through the Republican party to incite wars. It is ridiculous, expensive, and terrible foreign policy.

Yes, a nuclear weapon in the hands fundamentalist Islamic madman that believes he will receive 70 virgins if he uses it to kill infidels is a lot more of a threat than even a communist nation having nuclear weapons.

And, we ARE, HAVE BEEN and SHOULD BE the policemen of the world if that it is what it takes to protect our citizens and freedom.

Ron Paul is unfit for office if he doesn't realize threats to our national security that more significant than the one Al Qaeda ended up being.

 

[olsparky]

No chance? Yep, you have been watching too much Fox. Yes, while FOX tries their best to ignore and downplay the significance of the Paul campaign, he is still winning polls and showing very well. Of course, if FOX would stop ignoring him, his chances would skyrocket.

I assume you are going to vote for Romney? Perry? Bachman? Just curious who you feel is fit for office if the most conservative Republican candidate doesn't quite meet your standards?

Gives me any national poll that shows Paul anywhere near the frontrunner.

I can't stand Romney.

I'd be satisfied with Perry or Bachmann.

 

[olsparky]

If she lies and ducks a basic question why trust her?

Because I believe she has sincere Christian beliefs that she has practiced her entire life.

 

[drbrumley]

Yes, a nuclear weapon in the hands fundamentalist Islamic madman that believes he will receive 70 virgins if he uses it to kill infidels is a lot more of a threat than even a communist nation having nuclear weapons.

Well, it can be said also of the Christian President who thinks he will be "raptured."

And, we ARE, HAVE BEEN and SHOULD BE the policemen of the world if that it is what it takes to protect our citizens and freedom.

Well Ol Sparky, unfortunately for you, this kind of stupid thinking has caused more harm to us and not the other way around. And I also think you haven't a clue about freedom and liberty.

Ron Paul is unfit for office if he doesn't realize threats to our national security that more significant than the one Al Qaeda ended up being.

Iran is more of a threat because......

 

[Choleric]

Gives me any national poll that shows Paul anywhere near the frontrunner.

I can't stand Romney.

I'd be satisfied with Perry or Bachmann.

Paul finished second behind Bachman in the coveted Iowa straw poll. She won by about 150 votes. The media is completely ignoring him, because he is the only candidate that would change anything. Jon Stewart made fun of the media for their blatant ignoring of Paul...pretty funny actually

You will see in that video he finished third in a recent CNN poll, ahead of Bachman.

Paul also won the Ames straw poll. Of course, it used to be a pretty important poll to determine front runners, but since Paul won, it suddenly is "meaningless."

Paul also destroyed the field in the Fox News Debate Poll by getting more votes than the rest of the field combined.

Paul Also won the CPAC poll earlier this year. Until Paul won, it used to be one of the most important polls to win. Now it is "no big deal"

Paul has been staunchly conservative for 30 years. He has never wavered, never changed his stance for heat or pushback. He has voted against every tax increase, is completely pro-life and believes in sound economic policy. He is the only candidate who would have any chance of making a difference in this country if he were to win.

You say you would vote for Perry, and I must say I find that mind-boggling. You say you won't vote for Paul because you think he is wrong on the legalizing issue (and for clarity sake, although he believes in legalization, he believes it is up to the states, so he would not stop any state from making drugs illegal if the states wanted to). That issue seems rather minor compared to Perry, who is a complete RINO and globalist who doesn't have a conservative bone in his body and has been lying to people ever since he got into politics. He will talk big about change etc, but if he wins, it will be business as usual.

Just like Obama, who promised an end to The Patriot Act, end to the wars etc, we got more wars and and extension of the Patriot Act. Perry, like Obama, is bought and paid for. Paul is the only true statesman, who votes based solely on what is good for the country, not on what is good for his career or his party or the people who fund his campaign.

And Bachman is only slightly better. She could be Paul's VP :second:

 

[eameece]

So, you think it is just a coincidence all or virtually every society in history has been patriarchal?

It is not consequential. Patriarchy is sexist and wrong; women make better leaders than men. Who were the best monarchs in English history, for example? Elizabeth, Victoria, Anne. And your assumption is false; ancient societies before 2200 BC were matriarchal, and so were many other societies, such as the celtic.

Laws may decrease consumption of drugs and alcohol, but the trade off is so great that it is smart to repeal the laws and use treatment instead. Ever hear of Al Capone? The Mexican drug war?

 

[eameece]

Yes, a nuclear weapon in the hands fundamentalist Islamic madman that believes he will receive 70 virgins if he uses it to kill infidels is a lot more of a threat than even a communist nation having nuclear weapons.

That guy is not the leader of Iran; the ayatollahs are the leaders. If deterrence works against the Soviets, it will work against Islamists.

And, we ARE, HAVE BEEN and SHOULD BE the policemen of the world if that it is what it takes to protect our citizens and freedom.

It doesn't so take. The UN should be the policeman, not the strongest power who uses it only for its own interests.

Ron Paul is unfit for office if he doesn't realize threats to our national security that more significant than the one Al Qaeda ended up being.

There are no such threats.

 

[Granite]

Because I believe she has sincere Christian beliefs that she has practiced her entire life.

She just happens to lie all the time. And she happens to lie about those sincere beliefs. Oh. Nice racket. So, what--that doesn't make you a hypocrite; you just have double standards.

 

[Granite]

Yes, a nuclear weapon in the hands fundamentalist Islamic madman that believes he will receive 70 virgins if he uses it to kill infidels is a lot more of a threat than even a communist nation having nuclear weapons.

And if such a threat seemed to exist we should stamp it out. Where is this threat?

And, we ARE, HAVE BEEN and SHOULD BE the policemen of the world if that it is what it takes to protect our citizens and freedom.

I see--so the new world order, or global totalitarianism, or some manner of globalized police state is fine with you so long as we're top dog. The impulse of tyranny seems to suit most Americans right down to the ground precisely because of this kind of ignorance.

Ron Paul is unfit for office if he doesn't realize threats to our national security that more significant than the one Al Qaeda ended up being.

Uh, what? I think there's a half-way coherent sentence in there somewhere.

 

[bybee]

And if such a threat seemed to exist we should stamp it out. Where is this threat?



I see--so the new world order, or global totalitarianism, or some manner of globalized police state is fine with you so long as we're top dog. The impulse of tyranny seems to suit most Americans right down to the ground precisely because of this kind of ignorance.



Uh, what? I think there's a half-way coherent sentence in there somewhere.

I'm fairly certain Ms Bachman is not a serious contender for the Republican nomination.
Sometimes, it is helpful to simply let the gasbags blat, blither and dither!

 

[olsparky]

Well Ol Sparky, unfortunately for you, this kind of stupid thinking has caused more harm to us and not the other way around. And I also think you haven't a clue about freedom and liberty.

That is dumbest comment I have ever read. You, apparently, don't even grasp that is it is our nation that kept the world free from Nazism, Communism and Islamic fascism by exerting military force when necessary to stop it.

If we elected a kook like Ron Paul, who has been bought and paid for by anti-war activists and Russian donors, we live under the constant threat of being attacked with nuclear missiles by Iran or of a nuclear attack by an Iranian-backed terrorist group.

Pretending Islamic militants won't harm us won't make the threat go away.

 

[olsparky]

I'm fairly certain Ms Bachman is not a serious contender for the Republican nomination.
Sometimes, it is helpful to simply let the gasbags blat, blither and dither!

Who are serious contenders, then?

Bachmann is certainly capable of winning Iowa and that would make her a contender.

Ultimately, it is a Perry and Bachmann race. I would expect Perry to prevail, though.

 

[olsparky]

She just happens to lie all the time. And she happens to lie about those sincere beliefs. Oh. Nice racket. So, what--that doesn't make you a hypocrite; you just have double standards.

Who doesn't downplay certain beliefs to get elected?

Even Alan Keyes was running on reparations for slavery when he ran for the US Senate in Illinois.

What is the alternative to deceptive politicians? Allowing godless Marxists like Obama to destroy the nation as the nation becomes Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

[olsparky]

I see--so the new world order, or global totalitarianism, or some manner of globalized police state is fine with you so long as we're top dog. The impulse of tyranny seems to suit most Americans right down to the ground precisely because of this kind of ignorance.

You're proof Ron Paul supporters not only support drug legalization but use drugs, too!

 

[Granite]

Who doesn't downplay certain beliefs to get elected?

Oh, that's good. So you have no problem with her ducking questions, hiding or downplaying what she really believes, and otherwise misrepresenting herself whenever convenient.

Even Alan Keyes was running on reparations for slavery when he ran for the US Senate in Illinois.

Keyes is a nut.

What is the alternative to deceptive politicians?

Well, there's a few things we could do...

Allowing godless Marxists like Obama to destroy the nation as the nation becomes Sodom and Gomorrah?

...but this kind of ill-informed false dilemma won't help.

 

[Granite]

You're proof Ron Paul supporters not only support drug legalization but use drugs, too!

Sorry to disappoint. Alcohol's my only poison.

If you can't see a difference between nations using force to conquer the world as opposed to using to prevent totalitarian nations from doing so, you're not very intelligent.

There's a world of difference. But that's not what you're talking about.

The Nazis, Communists or Islamic fascists would have already overtaken the world if idiots like Ron Paul had been in charge.

Well, dead wrong. But suit yourself.

It is our military power that has kept the free world free for decades.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[olsparky]

I see--so the new world order, or global totalitarianism, or some manner of globalized police state is fine with you so long as we're top dog. The impulse of tyranny seems to suit most Americans right down to the ground precisely because of this kind of ignorance.



There is a huge difference between using military force to protect the world from totalitarian states like Iran and using it to conquer the world and eliminate freedom.

This country would have ceased being free long ago if you or Ron Paul were charge as Nazis, communists or Islamic fascists would have conquered the world before you would have taken action.

 

[olsparky]

Sorry to disappoint. Alcohol's my only poison.



There's a world of difference. But that's not what you're talking about.



Well, dead wrong. But suit yourself.



Keep telling yourself that.

So, you're telling us that you don't believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would use nuclear weapons for reasons other than self-defense?
That he wouldn't launch a first-strike attack against Israel or the US?

If so, why you believe that given that he has threatened to do that in the past?