Republican Debate?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Date sort Score sort
Seriously as this debate coverage begins, what issues do you feel
really need to be addressed?

What's on your mind as being the most important issues you feel
this President and the next President need to face?

United States economy?
World economy and trade issues?
Healthcare?
Immigration reforms?
Education?
Ending wars?

And on those issues, what do you feel the President needs to do?
Predicting the outcome of several senate seats, would a democrat
or a republician President have the better chance of working with
congress to help America?

To judge a setting President is very difficult. The issues President
Obama faces are not all issues he created. Take a minute and look
to see where you think the problems came from first. Not all Obama's
doing.

Harry S. Truman is now considered as being a good President. But at
the end of his term, he left office with the lowest approval rating of any
President.

It takes time to really judge a President.
 
The economy would be near the top but I am unsure how the president would help it really, I have some ideas that may help like getting back our industrial might in all fields. Healthcare is none of the Governments business IMO, Education above high school is over rated so that would be fine where it is but they could do away with affirmative action and let folks go by thier abilities and qualifications. Ending wars I see not happenning they could cut back and let those that benefit from our policing take some of the responsibility, I prefer the "clear and present danger" approach to dealing with our enemies over war.

Republicans have always been best for the economy. Look how well we rode the Reaganomics wave and how long, his military spending has really paid off for American companies or it did.

All incoming presidents take on previous baggage so that is moot it would be better to focus on his term and forward I really tire of hearing Obama blaming past presidents. My motto is do not look back but press forward.

Truman had a lot more on his plate than Obama does. Rebuilding the country from the biggest war ever fought, the Korean War, the Marshall plan, Truman doctrine, NATO, the U.N. and living with the descision to nuke Japan, really no comparison. IMO
 
Quote:
I couldn't agree more. One of those three really need to be our next president. ALL three are morally clean and wholesome individuals. We need that in our next leader.

Interesting that there is still so much bias out there about Latter-day Saints (Mormons)... most of what people say about them is simply NOT true. If you want to really know something about a religion, go to the source. Pastors of other religions tell more lies about the Mormon faith than any other group.

Do your own research... if you hear anything about them other than stuff you read on this site, you can know it's not true.
Latter-day Saints (Mormons)

You'd be amazed at how many Latter-day Saints there are on BYC....
smile.png
..... and many of them are NOT Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman fans.
 
Cain won a Florida straw poll, after the debate. The race card would have to be thrown out the window and actual thought put into why you are voting for someone.

Cain 37%
Perrry 15%
Romney !4%
 
Quote:
Boyd, mind if I have some fun with this?

By the idea of original government, I assume you mean the original constitution. I would not rigorously oppose the idea, but could I suggest three changes.

First, I'd like to keep the first ten amendments, worded the way they currently are so we can keep arguing over what they actually mean. I realize they were included as a result of that nasty word compromise and they should have rigidly stuck to their principles and not included them, but I get a lot of entertainment value out of what different people say they mean. Without the Founding Fathers agreeing to the compromise of including the first ten amendments, the Constitution would not have been ratified, so they had to include it. Does that mean the Founding Fathers meant for the leaders of this country to compromise in governing our country? What a radical idea!!! Anyway, I'd like to keep the first ten.

Also could we give the women the right to vote instead of men and could we allow blacks to own whites this time around, just to see where we wind up.

Well, now, this does sound like a fun discussion. Hope y'all don't mind me droppin' in. Myself being a white male Christian Southerner and all, maybe my thoughts don't count, but here goes.
wink.png


The first ten amendments weren't a compromise, they were written to clarify and protect rights. Compromise involves partially abandoning your principles, whereas the Bill of Rights was simply a clarification of the Founders' principles. And the wording is very, very clear in all of them - only wilful ignorance allows people to misinterperet them.

As for that last part - why must things like this always get brought up when the discussion has nothing to do with them? Boyd was clearly talking about governing principles, not specific morally questionable laws.

It seems like any time someone brings up the Constitution, some person has to go "OMG they mistreated women and minorities!" This, despite the fact that generally speaking, the person is NOT suggesting repealing all but the first ten amendments - though there are a few amendments I would like to see gone, 14th, 16th, and 17th specifically. Anyway, the later amendments (that nobody is suggesting repealing) corrected the mistreatment problem, thereby making any attempt to associate small government with racism/sexism TOTALLY invalid.

Q9, it is obvious you did not see the part where I said I wanted to have fun with it. That means don't get your knickers in a twist. Don't take it too seriously. I'm also a white male southerner. My religion is my own business, at least as long as certain people don't have their way.

Isn't it interesting how things change. Until the Blue Dogs got knocked out, conservative democrats had quite a bit of influence in their party. Some past Republican presidents were fron the liberal wing of their party. I also find it interesting that the Liberals are the moderates in the UK, between the Conservatives and Labor. Labels and polarization. Change is not always progress, at least to me.
 
Yes it is and a little off topic, my apologies to the OP.

Romney is whatever the folks that pay his bills want him to be. The problem that will haunt him is he is like Bob Dole and has had too many unsuccessful attempts and is not going to get elected. The last 3 or 4 guys elected won the first time they tried, seems to be a trend, as memory serves. I think Hillary was a better choice than the current option.
Quote:
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_ch...ssive_era/struggleforstatehoodchronology.html

Isn't this discussion kinda irrelevant? I doubt that Romney is a polygamist. I don't doubt that he's a liberal in conservative clothing.

I'd still take him over Obama, though... or *shudder* Hillary Clinton.
hide.gif
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

chickndays
Where to move chicks
2 3
Replies
23
Views
923
SnackMeat
SnackMeat
C
3 year old light brahma has water belly/Ascites: Some advice please
Replies
0
Views
118
ckuehn
C
Chickensarecool123
Chicks in the hot weather
2
Replies
11
Views
576
Chickensarecool123
Chickensarecool123
atomic
Integrating lone pullet
Replies
4
Views
331
atomic
atomic
Chicks Creek
Insulating a bachelor pad
Replies
5
Views
306
Chicks Creek
Chicks Creek

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom