PDA

View Full Version : Picking Someone To Support



Marvin S
12-02-2011, 07:09 PM
This years crop of RPOTUS hopefuls have been an interesting lot, somewhat like picking a pup out of a litter with hopes that someday it will have NFC in front of it's name ;-). I've watched some interesting points made on this forum for & against many of the candidates so thought it time to see if there is enough info, past & present, to say one of those aspirants has the qualities to lead - & could they win if nominated. I will post the names & as posters make their case the thread will be edited to add to the +'s & -'s of each candidate, including some dropouts who IMO brought something to the hunt. Remember that in order to be a + or - it must be something that resonates with a large block of voters - my choice, as I probably have more experience losing close elections than anyone on this forum :). One thing to remember, in order to be there at the end the successful nominee needs to be capable of handling the position & look the part. Personality quirks become significant :o. There are no AUH2O's in this race, who to my way of thinking was the best person I have ever cast a vote for POTUS.

Perry +'s -'s
Gingrich +'s -'s
Romney +'s -'s
Paul +'s -'s
Cain +'s ='s
Santorum +'s -'s
Bachman +'s -'s
Huntsman +'s -'s
Gary Johnson +'s -'s
Pawlenty +'s -'s

So go for it -

JDogger
12-02-2011, 07:41 PM
Why didn't you just make it a poll Marvin?

That said, thank you for including Gary Johson in your list. This flaming liberal voted for him twice for NM governor. He was, and still is a popular figure in NM.
There have been rumors lately of his running as a Libertarian. I hope he stays the course as an R. Even if he were to get on the ballot in some states as a libertarian, he would just be a spoiler.

I for one would like for the next POTUS to be a clear winner with the majority of popular votes as well as electoral.

JD

BonMallari
12-02-2011, 07:43 PM
I like your premise so here is my +/-


1. Perry: +'s : carries himself in a Presidential manner, tough talker when it comes to border security,proven track record, will still get a LOT of votes from the religious right....Minuses: country doesnt trust another Bush era governor from TX,his social conservative views will alienate many

2.Pawlenty: carried himself in a very Presidential manner too,still cant figure out why he never caught on,guess he wasn't dynamic enough for the media

3.Romney: Plus; has the look and polish to pull it off, articulate, educated,experienced, he MIGHT be the Smart, safe choice...minuses: people just cant get past his religion,or the Mass health care legislation

4.Bachmann: makes Sarah Palin look like a good choice, attractive but abrasive

5. Santorum : really clinging to the religious social conservative right, unelectable,not sure how he can stay in the game

6. Huntsman; +'s : smart, articulate well rounded,underestimated,...minuses: will never get a chance to get his message out,if you disqualify Romney for his religion then you have to do the same for Huntsman

7. Paul : +'s; loyal following,strong constitutionalist..minuses: looked upon by the general public in a less than presidential manner

8. Gingrich: +'s: extremely articulate, appeals to a conservative base...minuses: could never see him being attractive to moderate America,he is like a slightly more conservative McCain,had he run in 08 he might have had a shot

9.Cain +'s fresh appproach,friendly...minuses: poorly managed campaign, very poorly advised

Franco
12-02-2011, 08:05 PM
This years crop of RPOTUS hopefuls have been an interesting lot, somewhat like picking a pup out of a litter with hopes that someday it will have NFC in front of it's name ;-). I've watched some interesting points made on this forum for & against many of the candidates so thought it time to see if there is enough info, past & present, to say one of those aspirants has the qualities to lead - & could they win if nominated. I will post the names & as posters make their case the thread will be edited to add to the +'s & -'s of each candidate, including some dropouts who IMO brought something to the hunt. Remember that in order to be a + or - it must be something that resonates with a large block of voters - my choice, as I probably have more experience losing close elections than anyone on this forum :). One thing to remember, in order to be there at the end the successful nominee needs to be capable of handling the position & look the part. Personality quirks become significant :o. There are no AUH2O's in this race, who to my way of thinking was the best person I have ever cast a vote for POTUS.

Perry +'s -'s
Gingrich +'s -'s
Romney +'s -'s
Paul +'s -'s
Cain +'s ='s
Santorum +'s -'s
Bachman +'s -'s
Huntsman +'s -'s
Gary Johnson +'s -'s
Pawlenty +'s -'s

So go for it -

Marv, your listed qualifications do NOT include SUBSTANCE!

It's all TV appeal and image. Screw that, we need solutions.

What the hell is, "Look The Part"? We have that now!

Good thing the Brits didn't make that fat, old, cranky, wacky Winston Chruchill pass a beauty contest before they made him PM.;-)

BonMallari
12-02-2011, 08:50 PM
Marv, your listed qualifications do NOT include SUBSTANCE!

It's all TV appeal and image. Screw that, we need solutions.

What the hell is, "Look The Part"? We have that now!

Good thing the Brits didn't make that fat, old, cranky, wacky Winston Chruchill pass a beauty contest before they made him PM.;-)

if that were the case, then we would have voted for Edwards or Palin

Marvin's premise is correct in that there isnt one candidate that has it all...each has plusses or minuses. you are so singularly focused on RP, that is all you see

I want my President to look Presidential, not just in physical looks but by the way they carry themselves, after all he is representing all of us

Substance is more than what a candidate says,it deals with what is in their heart, the compassion he has for the country, and his outlook..I want a candidate with a positive message, there is plenty of negativity already out there

Buzz
12-02-2011, 09:24 PM
What about Buddy Roemer?

Franco
12-02-2011, 10:43 PM
if that were the case, then we would have voted for Edwards or Palin

Marvin's premise is correct in that there isnt one candidate that has it all...each has plusses or minuses. you are so singularly focused on RP, that is all you see

I want my President to look Presidential, not just in physical looks but by the way they carry themselves, after all he is representing all of us

Substance is more than what a candidate says,it deals with what is in their heart, the compassion he has for the country, and his outlook..I want a candidate with a positive message, there is plenty of negativity already out there

Nope!

Looks mean nothing. It is what's in their brain and the abilty to get the job done. Bush had a good heart but, he was a dummy.

Besides, Edwards and Palin aren't that physically attractive.

Marvin S
12-02-2011, 10:44 PM
Why didn't you just make it a poll Marvin?

That said, thank you for including Gary Johson in your list. This flaming liberal voted for him twice for NM governor. He was, and still is a popular figure in NM.
There have been rumors lately of his running as a Libertarian. I hope he stays the course as an R. Even if he were to get on the ballot in some states as a libertarian, he would just be a spoiler.

I for one would like for the next POTUS to be a clear winner with the majority of popular votes as well as electoral.

JD

I don't know enough of GJ to exclude him, but you need to tell us his positives from your perspective. Why do you support him with your 1st hand knowledge of what he does as a governor :).

I subscribed to Reason when Virginia Postrel was editor, the new guy, Gus something was a turn-off. I'm an avid reader of things coming from CATO, bought myself a CATO hat to wear to political functions. IMO they are the one group trying to provide sensible solutions to many of the issues facing our great country. Though I do not agree with their pot solution :o.

Marvin S
12-02-2011, 10:53 PM
Marv, your listed qualifications do NOT include SUBSTANCE!

Franco - How's your comprehension skills - I did not list a set of qualities for this exercise. If you believe your guy has SUBSTANCE, say so as one of his perceived qualities. But be prepared to present an argument, I personally have not seen that quality in any of the candidates. It is a + or - game.

On a lighter note LSU looks awfully good to date - just like to see them play the best of the rest, rather than AL.

M&K's Retrievers
12-02-2011, 10:53 PM
if that were the case, then we would have voted for Edwards or Palin

Marvin's premise is correct in that there isnt one candidate that has it all...each has plusses or minuses. you are so singularly focused on RP, that is all you see

I want my President to look Presidential, not just in physical looks but by the way they carry themselves, after all he is representing all of us

Substance is more than what a candidate says,it deals with what is in their heart, the compassion he has for the country, and his outlook..I want a candidate with a positive message, there is plenty of negativity already out there


Bon, don't you appreciate Obama's nose in the air smirk? Kinda reminds me of some of history's dictators as they look out over their subjects.

JDogger
12-02-2011, 11:47 PM
I don't know enough of GJ to exclude him, but you need to tell us his positives from your perspective. Why do you support him with your 1st hand knowledge of what he does as a governor :).



He no longer does as a governor, he did at one time. He was king of the spending veto, and in that respect I guess I could be called a fiscal conservative, because I agreed.
In a State of rabid spending dems, he held a line. Of course it was a different economy then.
Before he came to the Governor's office he had built and led a very successful business.
As to his stance on drug decriminalization I believe he comes from purely a
cost benefit analysis view, rather than a social one, and he never pushed it very hard as Gov.
He is a frequent guest on the local PM talk radio show in ABQ where he is always well recieved.
I don't give him a snowball's chance in the R's primaries nationally. Neither do I any of the others except the one that will be picked for us.:rolleyes:
Like I said in another thread, we will most likely end up with two imperfect candidates from which to choose. :( JD

Franco
12-03-2011, 06:45 AM
Franco - How's your comprehension skills - I did not list a set of qualities for this exercise. If you believe your guy has SUBSTANCE, say so as one of his perceived qualities. But be prepared to present an argument, I personally have not seen that quality in any of the candidates. It is a + or - game.

On a lighter note LSU looks awfully good to date - just like to see them play the best of the rest, rather than AL.

Well, excuse me if I think our Monetary, Economic, Social and Foreign Policies are more important than how they project themselves on TV!

If OSU beats OU, they deserve the title shot. OSU will have beaten 5 ranked teams compared to Bama only beating two ranked teams. LSU still has to take care of buisness in the SEC Champ game.

caryalsobrook
12-03-2011, 07:20 AM
My choice is anybody but Obama, and I am just waiting for him(her) to stand up. AS far as positives and negatives, none of their negatives are below 0 and that beats any of Obama's positives which are below 0.

Buzz
12-03-2011, 02:56 PM
What about Buddy Roemer?

Guess I'm the only one who likes Buddy... :D

Uncle Bill
12-04-2011, 12:25 PM
Guess I'm the only one who likes Buddy... :D



And that's a definite positive!!!

UB

Uncle Bill
12-04-2011, 12:42 PM
Of all the presumptions put forth, Marv...I only look at what Obama has to offer as a positive, and hope like hell the FOOLS of this country can decide to put up someone that can negate his ONLY positive in this election.

We all know that all he is is a campaigner, with the ability to spread lies like no other POTUS before him. We all know he is an empty suit with his only agenda being to favor the unionistas, environmental whackos, and put down America's greatness while stabbing the private sector in the back.

The only chance this nations has to get back from the precipace of ruin is to get rid of this phoney and his Regime, and kill all the programs he and his unionistas pushed through. The only way that gets done is to beat him at his strength...namely turn him into the blubbering idiot we all know he is, should he be debated by someone with the intelligence to show him up for just that. Newt has stated he'll even allow him to use his teleprompter, but I doubt it would keep up with the debate, so it would just once again make Obama out to be only a 'reader' of what his writers have to say, and will point out his lack of knowledge on a subject.

The FOOLS of this nation MUST be convinced we can no longer provide him another 4 years to kill our constitution, while making us into a 3rd world nation by defaming and belittling us.

As I see it, I'll take Newt, warts and all, for that project! While Romney MIGHT get the job done, It's my guess he'll be viewed as being picked by the elitists of the party, and not by the grass roots crowd, whether you buy into Newt being conservative enough or not.

The rest are no longer valid, IMFWBDAO!

UB

BonMallari
12-04-2011, 02:41 PM
Well said UB...it comes down to three for me, and in no particular order (Romney,Gingrich,Perry)

Franco
12-04-2011, 03:22 PM
IMHO, Gingrich won't survive the vetting process. His support of Amnesty, The Dream Act and payola to lobby fellow Repubs for their support of Fannie will be hard to overcome.

Perry is done, he just doesn't know it yet.

The nomination will come down to either Romney or Paul.

sandyg
12-04-2011, 04:01 PM
The nomination will come down to either Romney or Paul.

Paul, ha! I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

If by some miracle Paul was to become president he would be 81 at the end of his first term, and since that job ages you by at least 20 years, Paul would be our first centenarian president!

BonMallari
12-04-2011, 04:18 PM
IMHO, Gingrich won't survive the vetting process. His support of Amnesty, The Dream Act and payola to lobby fellow Repubs for their support of Fannie will be hard to overcome.

Perry is done, he just doesn't know it yet.

The nomination will come down to either Romney or Paul.


Stick to college football Franco, at least you have a winner there...you may be right about Perry, but the religious right in SoCar has a way of making a contender out of a bible thumper

caryalsobrook
12-05-2011, 06:32 AM
As I said on another thread, I thought the interviews hosted by Huckabee were truly informative. First of all I believe any one of them would be far better than BHO.

Marv asked for the +'s and -'s of eaach candidate, but I will try to just five a couple of -'s of each.

Start with Romney on this post. He stated that his health care bill in Mass. only affected 8% of the population of the state. he then went on to say that it didn't lower health care and insurance cost as expected but actually reaised them. How can he believe that this didn't affect all of the state? Second, delays in providing treatment were incresased. Doesn't he think this affected all in the state? I consider these as -'s and shows him as more liberal and gov. interventionist than I originally believed.

He also made the excuse to keep part of the Dept. of ED. because "the teachers union was so powerful that Fed. Gov. regulation was necessart to combat their power" ( he said this in support of the No Child Left Behind Program). Again looking for more power for the gov. with as more distance and less control of the people. he seems to go down that path that liberals take is looking for gov. solutions for problems that were originally caused by gov. policy. Consevatives believe "let the states set union policy and COMPETE with the other states!" he is right that "one size doesn't fit all" so get rid of the NLRB and let the states compete and see which works the best.

Having said all this , I still prefer Romney whose +'s far outweigh BHO. What do you think?

5 more candidates to go.

caryalsobrook
12-05-2011, 04:18 PM
Hm, all day and no rise out of the left or right on the two minuses I listed for Romney.

Let me try Ron Paul. That ought to at least get a rise out of Franco:p As usual he could not stay on point when answering a question. Had I not read some of his position on his web site and heard him speak many times, I would not have had a clue what he was talking about. Probably his most glaring weakness, people tend to think he is a kook because they can't figure out what he is talking about. I suspect that many more would agree and support him if he could only present his positions in a clear and concise manner.

One slight mistake he made though. He stated that the gov. was Constitutionally responsible for maintaining a "stable money supply". He is right about "maintaining a money supply" But maintaing a STABLE money supply is actually policy which I would agee with. But let it never be said that Keynesians are interested in Stabel, they are more interested in monetary policy than can be manipulated for so called economic reasons.

JDogger
12-05-2011, 09:40 PM
Hm, all day and no rise out of the left or right on the two minuses I listed for Romney.

Let me try Ron Paul. That ought to at least get a rise out of Franco:p As usual he could not stay on point when answering a question. Had I not read some of his position on his web site and heard him speak many times, I would not have had a clue what he was talking about. Probably his most glaring weakness, people tend to think he is a kook because they can't figure out what he is talking about. I suspect that many more would agree and support him if he could only present his positions in a clear and concise manner.

One slight mistake he made though. He stated that the gov. was Constitutionally responsible for maintaining a "stable money supply". He is right about "maintaining a money supply" But maintaing a STABLE money supply is actually policy which I would agee with. But let it never be said that Keynesians are interested in Stabel, they are more interested in monetary policy than can be manipulated for so called economic reasons.

So, Cary you admit here and now, that you post to get a "rise" from people. It's Ok. So do most of us. I know I do.
We are not here, you, me, or any of the other regular posters to engage in genuine, high-brow, intellectual political debate...
Mostly, we post to smack-down our political adversaries with back-handed insults that the moderators cannot directly fault...
Just like the real game that is now going on nationaly, we play here on PP.

Good Huntin' to you brother.

JD

charly_t
12-05-2011, 10:10 PM
So, Cary you admit here and now, that you post to get a "rise" from people. It's Ok. So do most of us. I know I do.
We are not here, you, me, or any of the other regular posters to engage in genuine, high-brow, intellectual political debate...
Mostly, we post to smack-down our political adversaries with back-handed insults that the moderators cannot directly fault...
Just like the real game that is now going on nationaly, we play here on PP.

Good Huntin' to you brother.

JD

Aaawww Shucks ! I come here expecting to hear you all tell me what is bad and what is good about each candidate. Not expecting high-brow just some common sense that is lacking in the news media :-)

Franco
12-05-2011, 10:51 PM
Hm, all day and no rise out of the left or right on the two minuses I listed for Romney.

Let me try Ron Paul. That ought to at least get a rise out of Franco:p As usual he could not stay on point when answering a question. Had I not read some of his position on his web site and heard him speak many times, I would not have had a clue what he was talking about. Probably his most glaring weakness, people tend to think he is a kook because they can't figure out what he is talking about. I suspect that many more would agree and support him if he could only present his positions in a clear and concise manner.

One slight mistake he made though. He stated that the gov. was Constitutionally responsible for maintaining a "stable money supply". He is right about "maintaining a money supply" But maintaing a STABLE money supply is actually policy which I would agee with. But let it never be said that Keynesians are interested in Stabel, they are more interested in monetary policy than can be manipulated for so called economic reasons.

I have no problem understanding RP because I know the issues.

I didn't get to see Huchabee. Saturday night was LSU v Georgia and Sunday night was Saints v Lions. I also avoid Fox News, zero credibilty with me. O'Reilly and Hannity are terrible shows filled with misinformation. Plus, once I started watching Bloomberg TV and Fox Business Channel(Lou Dobbs is the best) I've pretty much forgotten about Fox News.

caryalsobrook
12-07-2011, 08:51 AM
So, Cary you admit here and now, that you post to get a "rise" from people. It's Ok. So do most of us. I know I do.
We are not here, you, me, or any of the other regular posters to engage in genuine, high-brow, intellectual political debate...
Mostly, we post to smack-down our political adversaries with back-handed insults that the moderators cannot directly fault...
Just like the real game that is now going on nationaly, we play here on PP.

Good Huntin' to you brother.

JD

BS JDogger. Speak for yourself. I don't post to "smack down political adversaries" and you can't find a single post where I have done so. You will find many posts that support some issues and criticize others as dumb.

I posted as a minus, RP's ability to present his policies in a clear nd concise manner that allows the majority of the people to understand his views. After watching him again on Huckabee, and just observing the posts of many here, I believe that to be a legitimate criticism. I am dissappointed that all here did not see the candidates on Huckabee because I thought each candidate did an excellent job of exhibiting their strengths and weaknesses.

I also watched the LSU-Georgia football game but I woke up early and saw a rerun of Huckabee. Franco in aan indirect way acknowledged what I said about RP by stating that he had heard RP many times and along with reading his positionson RP's website, understood his positions. I did go and read RP's positiong on hes website and had it not been for Franco's suggestion, I may not have. For that I thank Franco.

Other than his position aof returning to the gold standard, I have not found a position of RP that I can dissagree with and I challenge you to PICK ONE and we can debate it. You won't see such words as "dumb, extreme, off the wall" to refer to an individual by me I don't need them. You don't believe me? Then try me!

Franco
12-07-2011, 10:07 AM
Cary, I respect anyone on POTUS that can articulate why they believe in what they do.

Too often others resort to name calling when they can't defend their position. It only weakens their credibility. You are not one of them!

I know we differ on the Gold Standard.

Over the last few decades, the dollar has become weaker compared to other currencies. Only in the very recent past have all the currencies devaluated. It wasn't that long ago when many Americans feared that Japan would own all of our assets.

My point is that a currency has to be backed by something or it becomes unstable. I've been wrong about some things in the past but, it we had stayed on the Gold Standard, the dollar would go much further in regards to buying power. For instance, in the late 70's, not too long after we did away with it, one could by a fully loaded Caddy Coupe de Ville for 10k. I use this as an example because my brother bought one in 78 for that price. Today, a similar Caddy would run 50k. Why? Because the dollar has no backing. Yes, the cost of everything has gone up and we just accept that as normal. It doesn't have to be this way. In the mid 1960's, a family could live very well on a 10k annual income. Again, with no backing of the dollar, inflation/deflation makes us all pawns in the wims of our government, banking and international politics.

road kill
12-07-2011, 10:16 AM
Cary, I respect anyone on POTUS that can articulate why they believe in what they do.

Too often others resort to name calling when they can't defend their position. It only weakens their credibility. You are not one of them!

I know we differ on the Gold Standard.

Over the last few decades, the dollar has become weaker compared to other currencies. Only in the very recent past have all the currencies devaluated. It wasn't that long ago when many Americans feared that Japan would own all of our assets.

My point is that a currency has to be backed by something or it becomes unstable. I've been wrong about some things in the past but, it we had stayed on the Gold Standard, the dollar would go much further in regards to buying power. For instance, in the late 70's, not too long after we did away with it, one could by a fully loaded Caddy Coupe de Ville for 10k. I use this as an example because my brother bought one in 78 for that price. Today, a similar Caddy would run 50k. Why? Because the dollar has no backing. Yes, the cost of everything has gone up and we just accept that as normal. It doesn't have to be this way. In the mid 1960's, a family could live very well on a 10k annual income. Again, with no backing of the dollar, inflation/deflation makes us all pawns in the wims of our government, banking and international politics.

Basic principals of marketing;
#1--Brevity
#2--Clarity
#3--Relevance

No where in those tenant does it espouse a need for verbosity.

I know I can not change any minds here, nor do I feel a need to.
I try to make my posts short, sweet and to the point.

Some get that, some simply don't.

I also have learned that a slo drip on a topic diminishes what ever impact the initial post and thought expressed had.

Do I ever post to get a rise, yes.
Do I ever go after a blatant lie, absolutely I have.

Having said that, often I post an opinion.
Often (not just in my case) ones opinions are attacked.
Just part of the internet game.

At this point, on POTUS, there is NO ONE here I would not be proud to sit in a blind or kill some road with.
In fact, there are a couple I have and a couple more I will.

Having said that, RP is an angry old man to me!!:D

But he is starting to gain though "attrition!!";-)

Mr. Graham and Mr Lardy would be proud......:cool:


RK

caryalsobrook
12-07-2011, 10:23 AM
Cary, I respect anyone on POTUS that can articulate why they believe in what they do.

Too often others resort to name calling when they can't defend their position. It only weakens their credibility. You are not one of them!

I know we differ on the Gold Standard.

Over the last few decades, the dollar has become weaker compared to other currencies. Only in the very recent past have all the currencies devaluated. It wasn't that long ago when many Americans feared that Japan would own all of our assets.

My point is that a currency has to be backed by something or it becomes unstable. I've been wrong about some things in the past but, it we had stayed on the Gold Standard, the dollar would go much further in regards to buying power. For instance, in the late 70's, not too long after we did away with it, one could by a fully loaded Caddy Coupe de Ville for 10k. I use this as an example because my brother bought one in 78 for that price. Today, a similar Caddy would run 50k. Why? Because the dollar has no backing. Yes, the cost of everything has gone up and we just accept that as normal. It doesn't have to be this way. In the mid 1960's, a family could live very well on a 10k annual income. Again, with no backing of the dollar, inflation/deflation makes us all pawns in the wims of our government, banking and international politics.

As I have said, I do not dissagree with you as to the effect of monetary policy post the gold standard period. But I do wonder if you are aware of what the effect would have been had we remained on the gold standard. Given the growth of the economy, we would have had just as drastic APPRECIATION of the dollar as we have had depreciation of the dollar and the effect would have been just as bad.

Neither systems have worked. Milton Friedman advocated a steadily growing money supply consistant with a healthy growing economy. a system that allows the money supply to grow but prohibits manipulation of the money supply due to short term economic conditions.

I might add that RP has stated that he supports a STABLE monetary system. I think Friedman's idea might work and is actually consistant with Rp's criteria of a money supply.. At least it is a system that has not been tried and both the gold system and the current system with Keynesian policy have proven to be failures.

Franco
12-07-2011, 10:50 AM
Basic principals of marketing;
#1--Brevity
#2--Clarity
#3--Relevance

No where in those tenant does it espouse a need for verbosity.

I know I can not change any minds here, nor do I feel a need to.
I try to make my posts short, sweet and to the point.

Some get that, some simply don't.

I also have learned that a slo drip on a topic diminishes what ever impact the initial post and thought expressed had.

Do I ever post to get a rise, yes.
Do I ever go after a blatant lie, absolutely I have.

Having said that, often I post an opinion.
Often (not just in my case) ones opinions are attacked.
Just part of the internet game.

At this point, on POTUS, there is NO ONE here I would not be proud to sit in a blind or kill some road with.
In fact, there are a couple I have and a couple more I will.

Having said that, RP is an angry old man to me!!:D

But he is starting to gain though "attrition!!";-)

Mr. Graham and Mr Lardy would be proud......:cool:


RK

IMO, more frustrated with some of the debate questions and side shows than angry. ;-)

Cary, I've been reading more and more about Austrain Economics but not enough to post my support of it. What I like about it is, unlike Keynesian, Austian supports the Free Market to determine success or failure.

caryalsobrook
12-07-2011, 11:10 AM
Basic principals of marketing;
#1--Brevity
#2--Clarity
#3--Relevance

No where in those tenant does it espouse a need for verbosity.

I know I can not change any minds here, nor do I feel a need to.
I try to make my posts short, sweet and to the point.

Some get that, some simply don't.

I also have learned that a slo drip on a topic diminishes what ever impact the initial post and thought expressed had.

Do I ever post to get a rise, yes.
Do I ever go after a blatant lie, absolutely I have.

Having said that, often I post an opinion.
Often (not just in my case) ones opinions are attacked.
Just part of the internet game.

At this point, on POTUS, there is NO ONE here I would not be proud to sit in a blind or kill some road with.
In fact, there are a couple I have and a couple more I will.

Having said that, RP is an angry old man to me!!:D

But he is starting to gain though "attrition!!";-)

Mr. Graham and Mr Lardy would be proud......:cool:


RK
RK one thing I admire is your ability at brevity and conciseness.:) Damn, I wish I was better at that, along with my typing.;)

caryalsobrook
12-07-2011, 11:18 AM
Basic principals of marketing;
#1--Brevity
#2--Clarity
#3--Relevance

No where in those tenant does it espouse a need for verbosity.

I know I can not change any minds here, nor do I feel a need to.
I try to make my posts short, sweet and to the point.

Some get that, some simply don't.

I also have learned that a slo drip on a topic diminishes what ever impact the initial post and thought expressed had.

Do I ever post to get a rise, yes.
Do I ever go after a blatant lie, absolutely I have.

Having said that, often I post an opinion.
Often (not just in my case) ones opinions are attacked.
Just part of the internet game.

At this point, on POTUS, there is NO ONE here I would not be proud to sit in a blind or kill some road with.
In fact, there are a couple I have and a couple more I will.

Having said that, RP is an angry old man to me!!:D

But he is starting to gain though "attrition!!";-)

Mr. Graham and Mr Lardy would be proud......:cool:


RK

kAngry OLD! OLD MAN????? AGE AND SEX DISCRIMINATION! AGE AND SEX DISCRIMINATION!! Pass a new regulation, no age and sex discrimanation on POTUS!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Franco
12-07-2011, 02:33 PM
kAngry OLD! OLD MAN????? AGE AND SEX DISCRIMINATION! AGE AND SEX DISCRIMINATION!! Pass a new regulation, no age and sex discrimanation on POTUS!!!!!!:rolleyes:

My, how things have changed.

When I was growing up, I was always encourged to listen to elders for their wisdom and advice that they obtained through their life experiences. ;-)

P S

It is why one of my favorite passtimes is visiting Nursing Homes "old folks homes", especially the ones that take care of service veterans. I enjoy bring them treats and talking with them and walk out of there feeling like they are the ones that entertained me! Best time to go is mid-morning while they are still talkative.

One of my favorite "residents" passed away Sunday. I've spent a lot of time the last two days remembering his stories serving in North Africa and Italy. He was also an avid fisherman and everytime he repeated the same fish story, I always pretended like it was the first time I had heard it.

Cody Covey
12-07-2011, 02:39 PM
My, how things have changed.

When I was growing up, I was always encourged to listen to elders for their wisdom and advice that they obtained through their life experiences. ;-)

i thought that a lot in the last election as well. When and why did age become such a factor in who we vote for. Is it because a lot of the nation hated Sarah Palin and she is the reason it was forever introduced into our politics as an "issue". To me I would rather have someone that has morals and integrity for a brief period of time than Obama or others for 4 more years. There are many things I disagree with Ron Paul about but you will never see me decrying his age as a reason...

road kill
12-07-2011, 03:01 PM
My, how things have changed.

When I was growing up, I was always encourged to listen to elders for their wisdom and advice that they obtained through their life experiences. ;-)

P S

It is why one of my favorite passtimes is visiting Nursing Homes "old folks homes", especially the ones that take care of service veterans. I enjoy bring them treats and talking with them and walk out of there feeling like they are the ones that entertained me! Best time to go is mid-morning while they are still talkative.

One of my favorite "residents" passed away Sunday. I've spent a lot of time the last two days remembering his stories serving in North Africa and Italy. He was also an avid fisherman and everytime he repeated the same fish story, I always pretended like it was the first time I had heard it.
Does this mean you will start listening to my sage advice going forward?
Or is the application of your upbringing subjective???:cool:


RK

Franco
12-07-2011, 03:07 PM
Does this mean you will start listening to my sage advice going forward?
Or is the application of your upbringing subjective???:cool:


RK


Hey, I think we are the same age and that ain't old! ;-)

road kill
12-07-2011, 03:23 PM
Hey, I think we are the same age and that ain't old! ;-)
Are you 60?

Of all the crap that has gone wrong in my life, getting old is the worst!!!!:cool:


RK

caryalsobrook
12-07-2011, 03:32 PM
Are you 60?

Of all the crap that has gone wrong in my life, getting old is the worst!!!!:cool:


RK

Just a couple of whipper snappers. Maybe in another 10 years you two will be out of diapers:p

Franco
12-07-2011, 03:32 PM
Are you 60?

Of all the crap that has gone wrong in my life, getting old is the worst!!!!:cool:


RK

Turned 60 in Sepetmber.

Some advice ;

Take a high quality multi-vitamin daily. Stay away from drugstore vitamins.

Take a daily heavy dose of photoplankton or Cultered alge Omega 3. Stay away from drug store Omega 3's.

Drink a little magnesium citrate twice a week.

Spend lots of time outside in the sun for vitamin D.


I find that taking these supplements helps to keep my pencil sharp;-)

road kill
12-07-2011, 03:40 PM
Turned 60 in Sepetmber.

Some advice ;

Take a high quality multi-vitamin daily. Stay away from drugstore vitamins.

Take a daily heavy dose of photoplankton or Cultered alge Omega 3. Stay away from drug store Omega 3's.

Drink a little magnesium citrate twice a week.

Spend lots of time outside in the sun for vitamin D.


I find that taking these suplements helps to keep my pencil sharp;-)
If you only knew.
I use Animal Pak multivitamin:shock:


I would add;
Iodine supplement (I use Standard Process Labs Prolamine iodine 6mg)
Nitric oxide (I use Nitrix by BSN):cool:
Testosterone support (I use recycle)
Rage by Animal Pak (for my pre-workout boost)

I hear what you are sayin', trust me............


RK

caryalsobrook
12-07-2011, 03:41 PM
Turned 60 in Sepetmber.

Some advice ;

Take a high quality multi-vitamin daily. Stay away from drugstore vitamins.

Take a daily heavy dose of photoplankton or Cultered alge Omega 3. Stay away from drug store Omega 3's.

Drink a little magnesium citrate twice a week.

Spend lots of time outside in the sun for vitamin D.


I find that taking these supplements helps to keep my pencil sharp;-)

Pencil sharp??? You must be a fisherman too!:p

Franco
12-07-2011, 03:43 PM
Pencil sharp??? You must be a fisherman too!:p

Can't beat fishing for Red Snapper!:D

mjh345
12-07-2011, 03:52 PM
When you lose your love for trolling for Snapper, you are officially old:)

Nor_Cal_Angler
12-07-2011, 05:49 PM
Can't beat fishing for Red Snapper!:D


When you lose your love for trolling for Snapper, you are officially old:)

Yes you can....

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/131/49321890.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/267/49321890.png/)

Try fishing for these...I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!

NOR-CAL-Angler!!!!

BonMallari
12-07-2011, 06:15 PM
When you lose your love for trolling for Snapper, you are officially old:)


I see what you did there...;):D:D...

charly_t
12-09-2011, 06:53 PM
Worrysome Jay Leno last night. If it was a "re-run" it might not be that bad but I think it was a first run for the program. Jay said something along the lines of 'who wants another 4 years of Obama' and a lot of people cheered. Then he asked about Newt and got a few cheers but not many. He never put anyone else's name out there. I hope that was just his usual audience with probably little knowledge of things. :-)

Franco
12-12-2011, 02:03 PM
Worrysome Jay Leno last night. If it was a "re-run" it might not be that bad but I think it was a first run for the program. Jay said something along the lines of 'who wants another 4 years of Obama' and a lot of people cheered. Then he asked about Newt and got a few cheers but not many. He never put anyone else's name out there. I hope that was just his usual audience with probably little knowledge of things. :-)

Ah, the vetting process, isn't it wonderful?


Maybe Leno's audience is against Cap and Trade as well as Newt saying that Fannie should be a role model for NASA;-)

"

Asked in a 2007 PBS "Frontline" interview about President George W. Bush's endorsement of mandatory carbon caps in his 2000 campaign, Gingrich said: "I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's very, very good. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support."


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/12/fact-check-plenty-to-question-in-gop-debate/#ixzz1gLfLvkcT

caryalsobrook
12-12-2011, 02:49 PM
Ah, the vetting process, isn't it wonderful?


Maybe Leno's audience is against Cap and Trade as well as Newt saying that Fannie should be a role model for NASA;-)

"

Asked in a 2007 PBS "Frontline" interview about President George W. Bush's endorsement of mandatory carbon caps in his 2000 campaign, Gingrich said: "I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's very, very good. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support."


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/12/fact-check-plenty-to-question-in-gop-debate/#ixzz1gLfLvkcT

Franco, Franco, in 2007 we had as so called evidence as presented by prof. Michael Mann "solid evidence" that for the last 2000 years, the temp of the earth had remained relatively stable UNTIL the advent of the internal combustion engine which put CO2 into the atmosphere. Given the results of his research any rational person would have to question the effect man was having on the environment using the internal combustion engine. We have since found out one SMALL(?) problem with his research. HE FALSIFIED THE DATA TO CONFORM WITH HIS CONCLUSION!! In fact his work showed quite the opposite of his conclusions. During medieval times, his data showed that not only was the global temp at least as warm as today but may very well have been WARMER than today. At the very least, it showed no direct relationship between flobal warming and the burning of fossil fuels. A committee of his peers at Penn State Univ. allowed him to keep his job explaining his incompetence(lying?) as poor compilation and modeling. These facts did not become generally known til later than 2007. I don't blame Newt or anyone else having concern before this.

Personally, I feel that allowing Prof. Mann to keep his job in light of the great harm he caused to gov. policy and research in general is a greater disgrace than the scandel of the Athletic Dept.

road kill
12-12-2011, 03:08 PM
Just an observation to the self righteous, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not "EVIL" in conception.
Though faulted.
Not until it became corrupt was it corrupt.

So stop pretending that someone knew something before it was known.

Governor Scott Walker has done more in 1 year than Paul has in his career.

Some people "talk the talk," others "walk the walk!!"


RK

Franco
12-12-2011, 03:59 PM
Just an observation to the self righteous, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not "EVIL" in conception.
Though faulted.
Not until it became corrupt was it corrupt.

So stop pretending that someone knew something before it was known.

Governor Scott Walker has done more in 1 year than Paul has in his career.

Some people "talk the talk," others "walk the walk!!"


RK

Many knew of the problems with Fannie and Freddie by 2007 when Newt made his comment as a paid lobbyist for Fannie. That they were in trouble was why they hired him.

The government should never ever be in the mortgage business. That is a business for the private sector and only a Liberal/Progessive would think that the government should be doing what the private sector should.

I like all union busters including Walker. I hope he survives the recall. I wasn't aware that Walker was supplying talking points for many of the candidates;-)

road kill
12-12-2011, 04:05 PM
Many knew of the problems with Fannie and Freddie by 2007 when Newt made his comment as a paid lobbyist for Fannie. That they were in trouble was why they hired him.

The government should never ever be in the mortgage business. That is a business for the private sector and only a Liberal/Progessive would think that the government should be doing what the private sector should.

I like all union busters including Walker. I hope he survives the recall. I wasn't aware that Walker was supplying talking points for many of the candidates;-)

He is not providing "talking" points, he is providing "walking" points.
He is actually DOING something.


RK

road kill
12-13-2011, 08:44 AM
BTW----I agree with GB--Gingrich is Obama and Bush.
A progressive to the bone.


RP is a savant in regard to financial issues, but lacking on domestic and foreign affairs.

There is not a conservative in the bunch.


Now that the media swarmed and destroyed Cain, who is next????

Walker/Ryan would be the ticket.:D



RK