Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_Olszewski said:
That’s immaterial NOW. What matters is that if folks are displeased with him, they ought not vote for him. That’s very simple. Just vote for someone else in '12. That’s how you will rid yourselves of the man you think hasn’t accomplished anything.
Click to expand...
Narcissism is immaterial now? It does matter as it shows the character of the person.
 
JMJSHJ said:
Narcissism is immaterial now? It does matter as it shows the character of the person.
Click to expand...
We NOW live in the age of the American Idol Presidency. If the GOP doesn’t come up with someone with at least as much entertainment appeal, they will probably fail this time around as well.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
We NOW live in the age of the American Idol Presidency. If the GOP doesn’t come up with someone with at least as much entertainment appeal, they will probably fail this time around as well.
Click to expand...
Given the economic problems facing this country I doubt that Americans are going to be fooled once again by smiling face and a well read Teleprompter. I read an interesting column by Charles Krauthammer where he said that whereas the 2010 election was based on painting Obama as a Marxist the 2012 election will be won by painting Obama as a failure-not a very hard task at all.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
We NOW live in the age of the American Idol Presidency. If the GOP doesn’t come up with someone with at least as much entertainment appeal, they will probably fail this time around as well.
Click to expand...
Damn, Trump should have not withdrawn. He easily has more entertainment appeal than Obama!!!
 
JMJSHJ said:
Damn, Trump should have not withdrawn. He easily has more entertainment appeal than Obama!!!
Click to expand...
To me, everyone of the GOP hopefuls has more entertainment appeal than does the President.
 
since Obama rushed to Planned Parenthood’s side in Indiana, NO CATHOLIC should vote for him!
 
jediliz said:
since Obama rushed to Planned Parenthood’s side in Indiana, NO CATHOLIC should vote for him!
Click to expand...
He was merely polishing his credentials as a most pro-abortion president in history the country. But then anybody who bothered to do any research at all knew that in 2008. Is not merely a matter of no Catholic should not vote for him, it’s a matter of no Catholic should have voted for him in 2008 either. Barack Obama is president today because 54% of those Catholics who voted in 2008 turned their back on their faith for partisan political reasons.
 
estesbob said:
He was merely polishing his credentials as a most pro-abortion president in history the country. But then anybody who bothered to do any research at all knew that in 2008. Is not merely a matter of no Catholic should not vote for him, it’s a matter of no Catholic should have voted for him in 2008 either. Barack Obama is president today because 54% of those Catholics who voted in 2008 turned their back on their faith for partisan political reasons.
Click to expand...
So, if you don’t like him, don’t vote for him. Talking about 2008 votes is crying about spilt milk.
 
estesbob said:
He was merely polishing his credentials as a most pro-abortion president in history the country. But then anybody who bothered to do any research at all knew that in 2008. Is not merely a matter of no Catholic should not vote for him, it’s a matter of no Catholic should have voted for him in 2008 either. Barack Obama is president today because 54% of those Catholics who voted in 2008 turned their back on their faith for partisan political reasons.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention the teleprompter …:rolleyes:

It amazes me that some can see in others hearts to know they turned their backs on their faith. It almost seems remarks like that are made for partisan political reasons.
 
ishii said:
As is sometimes the case, tsuwano, we disagree on this. 2008 was for many reasons, a bad year for the GOP. Bush was president for eight years. The economy was in a recession. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars had been going on for years. There was the excitement of the first black president, etc. I think it would have been difficult for any GOP nominee to overcome those odds.

Furthermore, I think we have to be careful in comparing the conservativism of Goldwater and even Reagan with the conservatism of today. Was abortion even an issue in the 1964 election when Goldwater was the candidate? Was gay marriage an issue when Reagan was the candidate? Did our entitlement programs face the imminent insolvency then that they do today? Goldwater certainly “mellowed out” in his later years. But I think his moderation in his later years says more about Goldwater than about some big “rightward shift” in the GOP that is preventing the GOP from being competitive. On the other hand, while in the 90’s Clinton seemed to redifine the Democrat party, its obvious that the Democrat party has returned to its left/liberal ideas that kept it out of the whitehouse in the 80’s. If they continue to promote the ultra liberal ideas that they’ve been promoting - they will continue to be the minority party.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Hey Ishi. I really have to smile when I hear you describe Barry Goldwater as “mellowed out” in his later years. Goldwater was anything but mellow. In fact, he was a genuine conservative who felt that the Republican Party was being hijacked by the religious right and their agenda as represented by the Moral Majority under Falwell and the 700 Club under Robertson. He raged against the influence of a particular religious viewpoint on the Republican Party and challenged the religious right’s view that conservatism was based upon holding this view. As a conservative who was very much a libertarian at heart, he opposed making opposition to abortion a litmus test for Republicans, feeling that the individual was capable of making moral decisions without government interference. He also opposed an anti homosexual stance on the part of the party and felt that the Repblican Party should not even involve itself in questions such as should Gays be allowed to serve in the military. He felt it was an ignorant question considering that many of the great military forces throughtout the ages, such as the Roman Army, had many homosexuals serving in it, probably including Julius Ceasar himself. He felt that such questions had less to do with conservative thought than with a religious viewpoint that was attempting to suppress true conservatism. Now, when we look at the Republican Party today and watch the candidates bend and twist to meet the requirements of the morality police in the party, we can see that Goldwater was correct to fear the influence of the religious right. The agenda for the Republican Party was recreated by the religious right and is now so identified with conservatism, that many so called conservatives think it is perfectly acceptable for a conservative to overrule individual conscience in the name of morality. Goldwater warned against such an identification for conservatives and the Republican Party and even wondered how he and Bob Dole, after years and years of being conservative champions in the Senate, were, in the light of the religious right agenda, were then considered to be on the left wing in the party. Barry Goldwater and his warning may have been ignored by Republicans, but he was not mellow about it. He raged against it to the bitter end.
 
Tsuwano said:
Hey Ishi. I really have to smile when I hear you describe Barry Goldwater as “mellowed out” in his later years. Goldwater was anything but mellow. In fact, he was a genuine conservative who felt that the Republican Party was being hijacked by the religious right and their agenda as represented by the Moral Majority under Falwell and the 700 Club under Robertson. He raged against the influence of a particular religious viewpoint on the Republican Party and challenged the religious right’s view that conservatism was based upon holding this view. As a conservative who was very much a libertarian at heart, he opposed making opposition to abortion a litmus test for Republicans, feeling that the individual was capable of making moral decisions without government interference. He also opposed an anti homosexual stance on the part of the party and felt that the Repblican Party should not even involve itself in questions such as should Gays be allowed to serve in the military. He felt it was an ignorant question considering that many of the great military forces throughtout the ages, such as the Roman Army, had many homosexuals serving in it, probably including Julius Ceasar himself. He felt that such questions had less to do with conservative thought than with a religious viewpoint that was attempting to suppress true conservatism. Now, when we look at the Republican Party today and watch the candidates bend and twist to meet the requirements of the morality police in the party, we can see that Goldwater was correct to fear the influence of the religious right. The agenda for the Republican Party was recreated by the religious right and is now so identified with conservatism, that many so called conservatives think it is perfectly acceptable for a conservative to overrule individual conscience in the name of morality. Goldwater warned against such an identification for conservatives and the Republican Party and even wondered how he and Bob Dole, after years and years of being conservative champions in the Senate, were, in the light of the religious right agenda, were then considered to be on the left wing in the party. Barry Goldwater and his warning may have been ignored by Republicans, but he was not mellow about it. He raged against it to the bitter end.
Click to expand...
Actually he was an increasingly senile man who was heavily influenced by his much younger and very very liberal trophy wife.
 
estesbob said:
Actually he was an increasingly senile man who was heavily influenced by his much younger and very very liberal trophy wife.
Click to expand...
When Goldwater died at 89 his family revealed that he was suffering from the early stages if Alzheimers, but it is not clear that this influenced his political positions. After all, his posiitons on conservative issues were clearly documented through a lifetime of work in the Senate. As for his wife, though you seem to be making a moral judgment of the man based on the fact that his wife was younger than he was, I don’t think such a judgment is warrented. Whether she was liberal, I have no way of knowing. I know that some extremists on the right wing of the Republican Party considered Goldwater liberal, but what else can you expect from those who hold extreme views? I prefer to think that Goldwater and his wife loved one another and feel it is undignified and dishonest to describe someone as a “trophy wife.” What you are really saying by using this term is that he was only interested in her because she was young and she was only interested in him because of his money or prestige. It is simply insulting to the man, the woman and their marriage.
 
JMJSHJ said:
Accomplished individual? So what were his accomplishments PRIOR to his seeking the Democratic nomination?
Click to expand...
Law review at Harvard, noted lawyer in Chicago, law professor at the U of C (like Scalia), state senator, well-thought of challenger to Bobby Rush, US senator. None of that was easy.

Remember. Goldwater was in the Phoenix city council before he became a senator. The president surely was an accomplished individual in 2007. His writing the story of his upbringing, which was remarkable, was not an example of narcissism
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Law review at Harvard, noted lawyer in Chicago, law professor at the U of C (like Scalia), state senator, well-thought of challenger to Bobby Rush, US senator. None of that was easy.

Remember. Goldwater was in the Phoenix city council before he became a senator. The president surely was an accomplished individual in 2007. His writing the story of his upbringing, which was remarkable, was not an example of narcissism
Click to expand...
What’s the requirements for law review these days?

I’m trying to figure out why he couldn’t cut a 3.3 at Oxford/Occidental, but managed to get into Harvard. You can’t even get into OU’s PhD program with that kind of GPA.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
What’s the requirements for law review these days?
Click to expand...
Well, first you gotta get into Harvard Law and many try but few are chosen. Then, one must have a high average in law school. Once again, not everyone can do this.

And, I can sure tell you that an undergraduate GPA in mid-range can still get one into a top law school! Its not just grades-- there are things like one’s major, LSATs and references.

After that, it is very, very difficult to get a teaching position on the law school level. The top law schools are *quite *selective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top